University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Pre-service teacher educator perceptions on preparing novice teachers for high quality teaching of K–12 students

(USC Thesis Other)

Pre-service teacher educator perceptions on preparing novice teachers for high quality teaching of K–12 students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Pre-service Teacher Educator Perceptions on Preparing Novice Teachers for High Quality
Teaching of K–12 Students

Danny J. Herrera

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2022

© Copyright by Danny J. Herrera 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Danny J. Herrera certifies the approval of this Dissertation

John Pascarella
Artineh Samkian
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv

Abstract
This study applied teacher education literature to understand the way pre-service teacher
educators (TEs) perceived their role in preparing novice teachers (NTs) to engage in high quality
instruction for K–12 students. The research participants, who were pre-service TEs with varied
backgrounds and at least 2 years of experience, were selected through purposeful and snowball
sampling. This study utilized a qualitative case study design with one-on-one interviews of 16
pre-service TEs within teacher education programs at universities across the United States using
a semi-structured, open-ended interview protocol to gather information of the participants’
perceptions and experiences on how they approached the preparation of NTs in their teacher
education programs. The analysis revealed two findings: First, all the research participants spoke
to constraints that limited their ability to prepare NTs to engage in high quality teaching of K–12
students. The constraints that pre-service TEs identified were time, challenging conditions facing
the teacher education program, and their role or level within their program. Second, the interview
data revealed that pre-service TEs all took distinct approaches to preparing novices, and these
approaches could be grouped into three categories: focus on pedagogy, focus on student identity,
and focus on both pedagogy and student identity. The study disclosed the way pre-service TEs
grappled with their work in the context of teacher education.

v

Dedication
To my father, Dionisio Herrera, whom I admired tremendously for the love and dedication he
made to his family. You taught me the value of hard work and always told me to choose a career
that made me happy. We are forever grateful that we had you as our “papa.” To my mother,
Mellie Herrera, who has always taught me to be a respectful and kind young man, and to always
look out for others. Words cannot express how much I love you both.

vi

Acknowledgements
I am deeply and tremendously grateful to Dr. Slayton for seeing me through this
enormous endeavor every step of the way. She never gave up on me, and she was always
incredibly responsive to my needs. Without her, this would not have been possible. My sincerest
appreciation for Dr. Pascarella and Dr. Samkian for committing to support me as members of my
dissertation committee. Your feedback and suggestions were a key part of helping me cross the
finish line.
I want to extend a heartfelt thank you to everyone who helped me along this journey. I
would like to thank Dr. Jacqueline Elliot, Dr. Hector Marquez, and Adriana Abich for writing
letters of recommendation that supported me in gaining admission to this amazing EdD program
at USC Rossier School of Education. I very much appreciate all my professors in the USC
Rossier program for all the valuable skills they taught me in doctoral research and practice,
including Dr. Chung, Dr. Muraszewski, Dr. Castruita, Dr. Green, Dr. Lyons-Moore, Dr. Cash, and
Dr. Kaplan. I want to thank all my colleagues in the program who provided support in so many
ways, including Erica Silva, Wan-Ju Lee, and Shirleen Oplustic. I want to express deep
appreciation for my friends who supported me and cheered me on, including Carlos Leyva,
Michael Moreno, Ricky Santana, Rudy Reyes, Willian Avila, and Alma Renteria. I have
tremendous respect and gratitude for my sixteen research participants for taking the time to speak
to me and share their thoughts and perspectives. I consider this a truly valuable learning
experience. I want to thank and appreciate the love and support I received from my family,
including my siblings Erik, Jeff, Jazmine, and Jesse Herrera.
Lastly, to my caring and supportive girlfriend and partner, Stephanie Melendrez. You
have been, by far, my biggest cheerleader and have supported me in every way you can. Thank

vii

you for being there for me. Your presence and love have provided so much comfort and have
helped me attain this goal. Thank you for being amazing!

viii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 8
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 10
Rehearsal as a Tool for Teaching ...................................................................................... 24
Reflection/Critical Reflection ........................................................................................... 46
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 76
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 81
Research Design................................................................................................................ 81
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 82
Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................ 83
Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................................................. 84
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 87
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 88
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 88
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 90

ix

Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 92
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 93
Finding 2: Teacher Educators’ Distinct Approaches to NT Preparation ..........................114
Revised Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................... 131
Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications, and Recommendations .............................................. 135
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 137
Implications and Recommendations ............................................................................... 138
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 141
References ................................................................................................................................... 143
Appendix A: Semi-Structured Open-Ended Interview Protocol ................................................. 148
Interview Questions ........................................................................................................ 148
Appendix B: Information Sheet .................................................................................................. 150
Information Sheet for Exempt Research ......................................................................... 150
Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 150
Participant Involvement .................................................................................................. 150
Payment/Compensation for Participation ....................................................................... 151
Confidentiality ................................................................................................................ 151
Investigator Contact Information .................................................................................... 151

x

List of Tables
Table 1: Professional Commitments of Ambitious Teaching 38
Table 2: Typology of Reflection: Dimensions and Guiding Questions 49
Table 3: Summary of the Pre-service Teacher Educators’ Basic Information 94

xi

List of Figures
Figure 1: The Cycle of Enactment and Investigation 29
Figure 2: Learning Cycle 35
Figure 3: Initial Teacher Education for Equity: Four Essential Tasks 44
Figure 4: The Reflective Cycle 61
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework 78
Figure 6: Revised Conceptual Framework 132
1

Chapter One: Statement of the Problem
As a teacher, coach, and administrator who worked in high-needs urban schools for over
15 years, I had often heard teachers complain about the low quality of their teacher education
programs. “Too much theory and not enough practice” seemed to be the constant mantra. My
own teacher education program suffered from this same limitation and caused me dissatisfaction.
My experience made me interested in studying ways to improve teacher education programs that
prepared NTs to teach in a high-quality manner for all K–12 students.
In this chapter, I offered the background of the problem by exploring historical
perspectives on teacher education. From this, I established that teacher education did not
adequately prepare NTs to positively impact all students through high quality instruction. I then
presented a statement of the problem as well as the purpose and significance of this study. In this
study, I was interested in understanding how pre-service TEs perceived how they approached
instruction in teacher education to prepare NTs to engage in high quality instruction for K–12
students.
Background of the Problem
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the national 2018–2019
adjusted cohort graduation rate for all public high school students was 86%, and lower for
Hispanic (82%), Black (80%), and American Indian/Alaskan Native (74%) students. While
students were graduating at higher rates than in 2010–2011 when the graduation rate was 79%,
they were achieving at dismal levels. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
measured the progress of our nation’s fourth and eighth graders in reading, math, and various
subjects. In 2019, only 34% of the nation’s eighth graders scored at or above proficient in
reading. The 2019 data was more abysmal when broken down by race/ethnicity where
2

achievement levels for students who scored at or above proficient in reading were the following:
Hispanic (22%), Black (15%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (19%). As part of NAEP
assessments, students, teachers, and school administrators answered survey questionnaires to
provide information about students’ educational experiences and factors related to student
learning. Students who reported having a class discussion about reading once a month to twice a
week or every day or almost every day scored higher in reading than students who reported
having a class discussion about a reading once or twice a year or less (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2019). We knew that the quality of instruction in K–12 classrooms mattered
and could either support students in growing their ability to achieve or decrease their ability to
read, write, think, and speak at academically proficient levels (Rivkin et al., 2005). As the
authors of The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in
Teacher Effectiveness (2009) pointed out, “In a knowledge-based economy that makes education
more important than ever, teachers matter more than ever.” They went on to state that “[teachers]
are not all the same. Just like professionals in other fields, teachers vary. They boast individual
skills, competencies, and talents. They generate different responses and levels of growth from
students” (p. 2). And “Teaching is the essence of education, and there is almost universal
agreement among researchers that teachers have an outsized impact on student performance” (p.
9).
Weisberg et al. (2009) stated, “We know that improving teacher quality is one of the most
powerful ways—if not the most powerful way—to create better schools” (p. 9). In Studying
Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education, the
authors state, “one of the most heavily debated issues in teacher education had to do with the
3

effectiveness of different kinds of teacher education programs and entry routes into teaching
(Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2009).
Furthermore, “it is generally agreed that knowledge societies demand workers who can
think critically, pose and solve problems, and work collaboratively—abilities not readily
developed in classrooms where teaching entails transmitting factual information to learners”
(Cochran-Smith et al., 2015, p. 109). This told us that “preparing students for future knowledge
work requires new ways of teaching that are grounded in constructivist views of learning” and
that teacher education must “focus on preparing teacher candidates to teach in ways that are
consistent with new understandings of how people learn” (p. 109). Historically and currently,
teacher preparation programs were inconsistently preparing NTs who were pedagogically
equipped to provide high quality instruction to K–12 students.
To illustrate just how different teacher education programs were, I turned to Forzani’s
(2014) comparison of programs that claimed to be based in practice. Forzani (2014) articulated
what could be learned from comparing core practice programs with those that claimed to be
“practice-based” (p. 357). According to Forzani (2014), the term “practice-based” was an
“amorphous term when applied to teacher education” because there were no clear distinctions
among varied approaches (p. 358). University-based, residency, or apprenticeship programs that
might have been considered “practice-focused” were not focused on pre-service teachers
learning specific teaching strategies. Whether or not a pre-service teacher learned a specific
instructional strategy was left to chance. Core practices were not clearly identified, and pre-
service teachers were not held accountable to learning teaching strategies in course grades or
graduation requirements. For example, a pre-service teacher might have spent significant time in
coursework or fieldwork and never have learned to lead a whole class discussion. These
4

programs were considered practice-based because students spent time observing or practicing
teaching. However, NTs were not held accountable to learning specific, high leverage teaching
strategies that they would be required to learn in core practice programs.
It was not clear how to differentiate between programs that claimed to be practiced-based
and core practice programs that held students accountable to learning specific core practices. One
example of a practice-based program presented by Forzani (2014) was The University of
Chicago Urban Teacher Preparation program, which was set up much like a teacher residency.
The curriculum was centered on at least one teaching activity, the interactive read-aloud, which
could have been considered a core practice. The program was considered practice-based because
students completed considerable field work within Chicago Public Schools and the program
focused student learning on a specific core practice. Forzani’s (2014) point was that it was
unclear if the University of Chicago Urban Teacher Preparation program was practice-based or a
core practice program that held students accountable to specific, high leverage teaching
strategies (pp. 358–359).
Forzani (2014) argued that teacher education programs that taught core practices were
centered on three key ideas:
 setting ambitious learning goals for all students, including high-level thinking,
reasoning, and problem solving
 teaching that would help pre-service teachers attain ambitious learning goals; and
 subject-matter competency. (p. 359)
In these core practice teacher education programs, curriculum was based on specific
instructional practices such as modeling academic content and leading whole class discussions.
Pre-service TEs were responsible for communicating curriculum expectations to students from
5

the outset of the program. Pre-service TEs engaged students in scaffolded opportunities to study
and learn core practice instructional techniques through videos, simulated situations, or coaching
roles. According to Forzani (2014), the hallmark of a core practices model was “intense focus on
particular, well-specified practices” (p. 358).
Forzani (2014) explained that because pre-service TEs within a core practice program
conceived of teaching as complex, improvisational work, they were responsible for preparing
NTs for high quality teaching (p. 359), which meant helping them learn strategies to help
students reach learning goals. These included:
Reasoning publicly and listening to, interpreting, challenging, and elaborating others’
ideas; identifying and investigating thorny questions, persevering in the face of challenge,
and taking intellectual and social risks—all behaviors that students [had to] develop
comfort with to learn at high levels—[and] require[d] teachers who [were] skilled at
managing complicated social and relational dynamics, facilitating classroom discourse,
and overseeing student-led projects and small group work. (Forzani, 2014, p. 359)
The pre-service TE’s role was to develop and sequence experiences to help pre-service
teachers acquire proficiency with ambitious learning goals. To help pre-service teachers manage
the complexity of teaching students to master learning goals, pre-service TEs employed
pedagogical strategies, such as video analysis, rehearsals, observation, and student teaching.
While these pedagogical strategies were not new, pre-service TEs grappled with how each
strategy gave information about and supported pre-service teacher learning (p. 366).
Gay and Kirkland (2003) argued that “developing personal and professional critical
consciousness about racial, cultural, and ethnic diversity should be a major component of
preservice teacher education” (p. 181). The authors pointed to strategies that NTs used to resist
6

racial, cultural, and ethnic critical consciousness, including being silent, diverting to other topics,
feeling guilty, and pointing to benevolent liberalism. As I suggested in Chapter Two and this
study’s conceptual framework, pre-service TEs had to be themselves equipped to model cultural
critical consciousness for NTs by creating learning experiences that dealt with real life situations.
NTs and pre-service TEs could not pretend to adequately meet the needs of diverse populations if
they had not explicitly thought about race, culture, and ethnicity as they worked with students.
As Howard (2003) put it, “the U.S. Department of Commerce (1996) projects that by the
year 2050, African American, Asian American, and Latino students will constitute close to 57%
of all U.S. students” (p. 195). This meant that “teachers must face the reality that they will
continue to come into contact with students whose cultural, ethnic, linguistic, racial and social
class backgrounds differ from their own,” given that the teaching population in the United States
was made up of mostly White, female, middle class women (p. 195). This made the
responsibility of pre-service TEs in teacher education to teach NTs “culturally relevant teaching
strategies … [through] critical reflection about race and culture of teachers and students”
(Howard, 2003) that more important.
Clearly, the task to prepare teachers who were pedagogically equipped to improve
educational outcomes in the United States was a challenging problem (Ball & Forzani, 2009).
With multiple routes into teaching other than teacher education programs considered to be
traditional, university-based, it was important to know how teacher education programs
accounted for quality to adequately prepare teachers for high quality K–12 instruction. It was
also important to understand the role pre-service TEs played in preparing novices for that task.
7

Statement of the Problem
We had research that problematized the effectiveness of teacher education. We had
research on a programmatic level that looked at problems associated with programs generally.
For instance, Darling-Hammond (2014) stated some core problems within teacher education,
including
the strong influence of the “apprenticeship of observation” candidates bring with them
from their years as students in elementary and secondary schools, the presumed divide
between theory and practice, the limited personal and cultural perspectives all individuals
bring to the task of teaching, and the difficult process of helping people learn to enact
their intentions in complex settings. (pp. 548–549)
This highlights the inherent challenges within teacher education that programs and pre-
service TEs face.
We were also aware of facets of teacher education programs that had been viewed as
successful, including having a “common, clear vision of good teaching that permeates all
coursework and clinical experiences, creating a coherent set of learning experiences” and “well-
defined standards of professional practice and performance that are used to guide and evaluate
coursework and clinical work” (Darling-Hammond, 2014, p. 548).
Moreover, we understood that there was a relationship between the structure of the
American education sector, and the constraints within teacher education visible in this study’s
findings. Namely, “the root problem is that the educational sector as a whole is organized around
a core system that functions as a bureaucracy rather than as a profession,” which led to a failure
to “recruit teachers from the top tier of academic achievement,” providing “them with only
limited training,” and equipping “them with little usable knowledge” (Mehta, 2013).
8

We did not have much insight, on an individual level, into the way pre-service TEs made
sense of the work they did. That was the focus of this study.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into pre-service TEs’ perceptions of the
ways they approached preparing NTs to engage in high quality instruction for K–12 students.
The following research question guided this study: What are pre-service TEs’ perceptions about
how they approach preparing NTs for high quality teaching of K–12 students?
Significance of the Study
As an aspiring pre-service TE, I believed it was a benefit to understand how pre-service
TEs made sense of preparing NTs to engage in high quality instruction for K–12 students. As
someone who grew up in a low-income, minority community in Southeast Los Angeles, I
remained incredibly passionate about learning how best to prepare teachers who could positively
impact all students, especially in high-needs urban areas, in culturally relevant and responsive
ways. This study allowed me not only to learn about the relevant research in this area, but to
discover how pre-service TEs themselves thought about how they approached this incredibly
important work. As someone who aspired to work within a teacher education program, insights
gained from this study enabled me to determine what I would need to do to promote high quality
preparation for all teachers.
This study contributed to the body of literature focused on NT preparation. There were
many studies that focused on reimagining teacher education to be inquiry and practice-based
(Ball & Forzani, 2009; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Forzani, 2014) and on teaching core
practices through rehearsals (Ghousseini et al., 2015; Grossman et al., 2009; Lampert et al.,
9

2013; McDonald et al., 2013). There were few studies that focused on how pre-service TEs made
sense of their own approaches to educating NTs.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation was organized into five chapters. Chapter One provided the context of
the problem by describing the background and statement of the problem; the chapter then
outlined the purpose of the study and its significance. Chapter Two presented four main bodies of
research, including research relevant to what needs to be taught in teacher education, rehearsals
as a pedagogical strategy to teach core practices, the role of reflection, and what pre-service TEs
need to be able to do to prepare NTs to engage in ambitious teaching. Chapter Three outlined the
methodology for the study, including the procedures that were used to collect and analyze the
data along with attending to issues of credibility and trustworthiness, ethics, and considerations
of limitations and delimitations in this study. Chapter Four presented the findings that answered
the research questions of this study. It also included my revised conceptual framework with
concepts that emerged because of what I learned through the data collection and analysis process.
Revisions to the framework were made to address pre-service TEs’ perceptions of their
approaches within the context of teacher education. Chapter Five presented a summary of the
findings for the study and discussed the implications and recommendations for practice, policy,
and future research.

10

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This study sought to answer the following research question: What are pre-service TEs’
perceptions about how they approach instruction to prepare NTs for high quality teaching for K–
12 students? To inform my perspective on this question, I reviewed the following bodies of
literature:
 empirical and theoretical work relating to what needs to be taught in teacher
education
 rehearsal as a tool for teaching
 reflection as an essential strategy
 literature relating to what TEs need to be able to do to prepare NTs who are able to
create meaningful learning opportunities for students from historically marginalized
communities.
The first body of literature, relating to what needs to be taught explicitly, described what
TEs should focus on (i.e., content and skills) in teacher education. The second body of literature
deals with rehearsal to teach novices teaching practices. The third body of literature described
how TEs should teach NT candidates the strategy of reflection that would enable them to engage
in reflective practice toward ambitious teaching. Finally, the last body of literature detailed what
TEs must be able to do if they are to support NTs in engaging in ambitious teaching. The chapter
concluded by detailing the conceptual framework that I constructed informed by the bodies of
literature and served as the foundation of my research design, sampling, data collection and
instrumentation, and data analysis.
11

What Needed to Be Taught
First, many scholars have articulated what needed to be taught by TEs within the teacher
education context (cf., Ball & Forzani, 2009; Cochran-Smith, 2015; Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999; Forzani, 2014; Grossman et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2013). Given the wide range of
perspectives, I focused on research from a small number of scholars within the teacher education
field generally and within the core practices movement. The core practices movement had
become popular among a select group of scholars who have embraced this approach to educating
NTs (e.g., Ghousseini et al., 2015; Lampert et al., 2013; McDonald et al., 2013).While the core
practices movement had come under criticism from other scholars (e.g., Anderson, 2019; Phillip
et al., 2018), I believed the strengths of the approach exceed the limitations and those limitations
could be overcome by making important modifications or supplements to it.
This body of literature began with Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), whose work I
believe, set the stage for the complex work of core practices and ambitious teaching through
taking an inquiry stance within inquiry communities. This is followed by various core practice
scholars who explain the reimagining of teacher education to teach core practices (Ball &
Forzani, 2009; Grossman et al., 2009; Forzani, 2014; McDonald et al., 2013). The body of
literature ends with Marilyn Cochran-Smith’s (2016) emphasis on keeping teaching complex.
Inquiry As Stance
Written in relation to work done with both pre-service and in-service teachers, Cochran-
Smith and Lytle (1999) propose a theoretical framework for teacher learning. First, through a
review of the different models of professional learning opportunities afforded to teachers in in-
service contexts, they made distinctions between three conceptions of teacher learning:
knowledge-for-practice, knowledge-in-practice, and knowledge-of-practice. The authors
12

extended their distinctions beyond knowledge-of-practice to an additional construct, also
relevant in pre-service teacher education, they called inquiry as stance, which allowed
individuals to understand how knowledge and practice related to each other and how learning
could occur through inquiry communities. As I discuss through my presentation of Cochran-
Smith and Lytle’s (1999) characterization of the relationship between knowledge and practice,
for the purposes of my study, I focused more explicitly on inquiry as stance and learning through
inquiry communities.
Knowledge-for-practice, the first conception of teacher learning, referred to “formal
knowledge” that derived from the “knowledge base” produced by education researchers who
represented traditional universities (p. 254). Essentially, this was knowledge that was created for
practice. It included educational theories that helped to explain approaches to pedagogy,
classroom management, assessment, and a range of other topics. Teaching was improved by
translating this knowledge into practice.
In the knowledge-for-practice conception it was assumed that a clear knowledge base
existed, created by experts outside the classroom, and to teach teachers to master this knowledge
base. The role of the TE was to teach NTs the content of the knowledge base, which included the
correct educational theories that teachers ought to follow. This was exemplified by the effort to
codify the presumed knowledge base as the focus of pre-service teacher education curriculum.
The second conception of teacher learning, knowledge-in-practice, referred to knowledge
that was created by very competent teachers as they practiced their craft in the field. Here,
knowledge was gained through experience. As teachers practiced inside of classrooms, they
gained more wisdom and knowledge about the best strategies, routines, and systems to
implement. Knowledge was created continuously through a teacher’s actions, decisions, and
13

judgments. To improve teaching, teachers needed to have opportunities to articulate the
knowledge they had gained through experience.
Conceptualizing the teacher as the “valid knower of practical knowledge” (p. 269), the
role of the TE, according to the knowledge-in-practice conception, was to support teachers in
reflecting on their own practices. The TE was seen more as a facilitator than as a presenter.
Knowledge was constructed through reflection of teacher experiences. Yet here again, expertise
remained outside of the classroom teacher and resided in the role of the teacher expert.
The third, markedly different, conception of teacher learning was knowledge-of-practice.
This conception posited that knowledge creation and use were constantly open to discussion (p.
272). That is, knowledge-of-practice did not see knowledge as deriving solely from universities;
nor did it come only from master teachers who had the most experience in the field. Instead,
knowledge was created by the “knower” in a richer fashion through pedagogy, theory, and
inquiry. Teaching was improved by individuals who constantly questioned their craft and
whether they were effective at any given time.
Going one step beyond knowledge-of-practice, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999)
suggested that the construct of inquiry as stance was the future of teacher learning. Inquiry as
stance was defined as “the positions teachers and others who work together in inquiry
communities take toward knowledge and its relationships to practice” (p. 288). Teachers and
student teachers who took an inquiry stance were those who worked together in inquiry
communities, questioned their practice, and used theory to create local knowledge to improve
teacher learning.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle argued that the work of an inquiry community was a social and
political act in that it involved problematizing the systems and structures of schooling. That is,
14

inquiry communities questioned the ways that knowledge was created, assessed, and used.
Teachers in an inquiry community individually and collectively sought change. Cochran-Smith
and Lytle (1999) posited that “Inquiry as stance as a construct for understanding teacher learning
in communities relies on a richer conception of knowledge than that allowed by the traditional
formal knowledge-practical knowledge distinction” (p. 289); rather, “it emphasizes the
importance of local knowledge that may also be useful to a more public educational community”
(p. 290).
From the perspective of inquiry as stance, teaching and teacher learning was about
creating and recreating ways of understanding practice: how curriculum was constructed by
students and their teachers using what they brought with them (i.e., experiences, culture,
language, etc.); how teachers understood who their learners were (i.e., class, gender, race,
history, etc.); and how teachers created curriculum that was informed by context and by who
their students were, current and past.
The role of the TE in the inquiry as stance conception was to get all teachers to engage in
similar intellectual work: to work together in inquiry communities, to identify the gaps between
theory and practice, to build on the work of others, to pose problems, and to surface assumptions
about teaching and learning.
Core Practices
Ball and Forzani (2009) argued that practice should be at the center of teacher education.
For practice to be the basis of curriculum in teacher education, the authors argued that a shift
needed to happen from focusing on what teachers knew to what they did. Creating a teacher
education curriculum focused on practice required developing content-specific instructional
strategies that NTs could learn to enact in their contexts. They also argued that there should be
15

ample opportunities for NTs to deliberately practice the work of instruction. NTs should practice
and learn tasks, such as “creating a respectful learning environment, assessing students’ math
skills, or reviewing homework” (p. 503). Ideally, NTs would learn how to take their context into
consideration to align their instructional practices. Thus, TEs would need to backwards plan from
the knowledge and skills NTs in teacher education programs needed.
Ball and Forzani (2009) suggested that, due to the complex nature of teaching, TEs
should break down instructional moves to be able to teach the moves to NTs. By deconstructing
teaching moves, teaching in scaffolded ways, focusing on high leverage practices, and using a
common language, TEs could help support the improvement of practice.
Ball and Forzani (2009) suggested that NTs could experiment with aspects of the
complex nature of teaching through approximations of practice, role plays, or small group
teaching. The TE’s role would be to design these approximations of practice so that NTs had
opportunities to present, demonstrate, rehearse, and debrief practice in a supportive environment.
Teacher educators would also be responsible for creating settings that approximated the
environments of schools to allow NTs to practice under varied levels of complexity.
The authors offered an example of what it might look like to teach practice in a university
methods classroom for elementary mathematics teachers. The TE in this example modeled for
NTs how to help students used mathematical knowledge through the subtraction of 52–13 with
beansticks, which were popsicle sticks that had 10 loose beans glued to them. She started by
writing the problem largely and clearly on the chalkboard and using five beansticks and two
loose beans to represent the number 52. While novice student teachers were observing, the TE
explained in the modeling that while subtraction could be interpreted as either the difference
between two quantities or the taking away of one quantity from another, the TE was going to use
16

the takeaway method to solve the problem. She then modeled by narrating her actions, which
were to take one beanstick away, replace it with 10 loose beans, cross out the number five in the
problem and write the number four above it to record what she had done. She then crossed out
the number two in the problem and wrote the number 12. She explained that all she had done
was “regrouped” the numbers, not changed their value. Next, she took away one beanstick and
three loose beans to represent subtracting by 13. She then counted the remainder amount,
pointing and narrating, and said “39,” the correct answer, when finished.
Afterward, the TE opened the floor to the NTs to discuss and critique the instructional
moves modeled. The authors stated that some noteworthy points about this example were the
careful and purposeful selection of materials (i.e., beansticks), the size and clarity of the math
problem written on the board, the careful modeling of the TE’s positioning in the room so that
she did not obstruct the view to the chalkboard or the materials, the slow and clear voice of the
speaker, and the close attention paid to the mathematical thinking of the concept of regrouping
and taking away to subtract. Since this was a controlled setting, the TE was able to control what
aspects of the lesson and what instructional moves she wanted NTs to focus on.
The authors noted that in this example, the TE modeled, and the student teachers
critiqued. There were significant demands on the TE and the work required a particular set of
skills.
Grossman et al. (2009) argued for a redefinition of teaching and a reimagining of teacher
education. They aligned themselves with the core practice movement and argued that, to
implement core practices effectively, TEs needed to dismantle what Grossman et al. (2009) saw
as a divide between theory and practice in teacher education. More specifically, they criticized
the standard approach to teaching theory and practice with university foundations classes usually
17

focused on learning concepts while methods courses focused on studying the actual work of
teaching. Grossman et al. (2009) saw this as a problem in the field and proposed a reorganization
of teacher education programs with core practices at the center.
To organize teacher education around core practices, the authors proposed what they
believed to be two important changes to the status quo:
 the development of teacher education programs that bridged the gap between theory
and practice
 a focus by TEs on the creation of agreed upon core practices
Grossman et al. (2009) proposed that core practices be at the center of teacher education.
The authors looked across the different sets of core practices articulated by other scholars
and identified a set of shared characteristics:
 occur with high frequency in teaching
 novices can enact in classrooms across different curricula or instructional approaches
 novices can actually begin to master
 allow novices to learn more about students and about teaching
 preserve the integrity and complexity of teaching, and
 are research-based and have the potential to improve student achievement (Grossman
et al., 2009, p. 277)
Grossman et al. (2009) asserted that teaching core practices addressed the theory practice
divide because doing so required TEs to attend to both simultaneously. NTs would learn the
theoretical underpinnings and have ample opportunities to enact the practices supported by the
theory. This bridging of theory and practice, according to Grossman et al. (2009), would enable
NTs to build their teacher identities. The authors believed that within the pre-service setting, NTs
18

would have opportunities to learn theory and enact practice with the feedback of their professor
and their peers. The authors emphasized that this conception of teacher education placed a lot of
responsibility on both the TEs and teacher education programs.
To illustrate the role teacher education might play in helping NTs gain the knowledge and
skills needed to be effective in their work, the authors provided several examples of enactment of
core practices. One of these core practices, leading classroom discussions, was seen not just as a
complex act, but as one needed to effectively teach students of any age or subject. To lead a
classroom discussion, the authors contended that a teacher needed to master several component
skills including deeply understanding course content, attending to group dynamics, reflecting on
issues of equity, and responding to student developmental levels. Moreover, a teacher needed to
be skilled at asking questions or posing problems, monitoring student discussion and
participation, and responding to a plethora of potential student responses (Grossman et al., 2009).
Therefore, leading a classroom discussion was viewed as a complex act that, according to the
authors, NTs could begin to master through “cycles of experimentation” (p. 282).
A cycle of experimentation, a kind of rehearsal meant to happen within a teacher
education program, included giving a NT the opportunity to create a question or problem in their
work, apply it in a setting where they were able to get sincere feedback, and use the learning to
determine their next step. This kind of purposeful preparation was meant to help NTs develop
their ability to enact core practices in their work.
Grossman et al. (2009) stated that one instructional implication for reimagining teacher
education was the need to allow NTs to enact core practices in a setting that was less complex
than real life so that NTs could focus on mastering the knowledge and skills needed. These were
termed “approximations of practice” (p. 283). As an example, if a NT was working on learning
19

the core practice of anticipating student responses, a TE might ask a NT to generate a list of all
possible student responses along with what the NT might say in response to the student(s). The
NT then had an opportunity to practice anticipating student responses with his or her professor.
After receiving targeted, purposeful feedback, the NT adjusted and executed the lesson with his
or her students in front of his or her peers and the professor. During a post-lesson check-in, the
NT had an opportunity to reflect on the enactment of the core practice and determine the
appropriate next steps. This was one way a TE, operating within a teacher education program,
could support a NT in effective execution of core practices. The authors emphasized that this
kind of work required TEs to have a strong vision for what they wanted NTs to learn, and it
required TEs be able to provide rich feedback that adequately supported skill development in
NTs.
The authors believed that the role of TEs in teacher education involved attending to
clinical practice and experimenting with how best to develop pedagogical skill within NTs.
Teacher educators would intentionally provide multiple opportunities for NTs to enact practices
through guidance in a supportive environment. This would require TEs to be skilled at coaching
and be able to provide immediate, targeted feedback.
McDonald et al. (2013) believed teaching “core practices” was the best way for pre-
service TEs to support NT learning. They defined core practices as “specific, routine aspects of
teaching that demand[ed] the exercise of professional judgment and the creation of meaningful
intellectual and social community for teachers, TEs, and students” (p. 378). To improve teaching
of core practices, McDonald et al. (2013) called for a “common language” to describe “(a) how
teachers learn[ed] to practice and (b) the pedagogies TEs enact[ed] to support teachers in
learning to practice” (p. 381). They suggested that a common language would improve collective
20

activity within the field and had the potential to lead to “ambitious teaching,” defined as
practices that attended to the learning and complex-problem-solving abilities of all students (p.
385). The authors argued for a reimagined approach to curriculum and pedagogy in teacher
education. Their approach is detailed in the next body of literature.
Forzani (2014) articulated what could be learned from comparing core practice programs
with those that claimed to be “practice-based.” According to Forzani (2014), the term “practice-
based” was an “amorphous term when applied to teacher education” because there were no clear
distinctions among varied approaches (p. 358). University-based, residency, or apprenticeship
programs that might have been considered “practice-focused” were not focused on pre-service
teachers learning specific teaching strategies. Whether or not a pre-service teacher learned a
specific instructional strategy was left to chance. Core practices were not clearly identified, and
pre-service teachers were not held accountable to learning teaching strategies in course grades or
graduation requirements. For example, a pre-service teacher might have spent significant time in
coursework or fieldwork and never have learned to lead a whole class discussion. These
programs were considered practice-based because students spent time observing or practicing
teaching. However, NTs were not held accountable to learning specific, high leverage teaching
strategies that they would be required to learn in core practice programs.
It was not clear how to differentiate between programs that claimed to be practiced-based
and core practice programs that held students accountable to learning specific core practices. One
example of a practice-based program presented by Forzani (2014) was The University of
Chicago Urban Teacher Preparation program, which was set up much like a teacher residency.
The curriculum was centered on at least one teaching activity, the interactive read-aloud, which
could have been considered a core practice. The program was considered practice-based because
21

students completed considerable field work within Chicago Public Schools and the program
focused student learning on a specific core practice. Forzani’s (2014) point was that it was
unclear if the University of Chicago Urban Teacher Preparation program was practice-based or a
core practice program that held students accountable to specific, high leverage teaching
strategies.
Forzani (2014) argued that teacher education programs that taught core practices were
centered on three key ideas:
 setting ambitious learning goals for all students, including high-level thinking,
reasoning, and problem solving
 teaching that would help pre-service teachers attain ambitious learning goals
 subject-matter competency (p. 359)
In these core practice teacher education programs, curriculum was based on specific
instructional practices such as modeling academic content and leading whole class discussions.
Teacher educators were responsible for communicating curriculum expectations to students from
the outset of the program. Teacher educators engaged students in scaffolded opportunities to
study and learn core practice instructional techniques through videos, simulated situations, or
coaching roles. According to Forzani (2014), the hallmark of a core practices model was “intense
focus on particular, well-specified practices” (p. 358).
Forzani (2014) explained that because TEs within a core practice program conceive of
teaching as complex, improvisational work, they were responsible for preparing NTs for
“ambitious” teaching, which meant helping them learn strategies to help students reach
ambitious learning goals. These included:
22

Reasoning publicly and listening to, interpreting, challenging, and elaborating others’
ideas; identifying and investigating thorny questions, persevering in the face of challenge,
and taking intellectual and social risks—all behaviors that students [had to] develop
comfort with to learn at high levels—[and] require[d] teachers who [were] skilled at
managing complicated social and relational dynamics, facilitating classroom discourse,
and overseeing student-led projects and small group work. (Forzani, 2014, p. 359)
The TE’s role was to develop and sequence experiences to help pre-service teachers
acquire proficiency with ambitious learning goals. To help pre-service teachers manage the
complexity of teaching students to master ambitious learning goals, TEs employed pedagogical
strategies, such as video analysis, rehearsals, observation, and student teaching. While these
pedagogical strategies were not new, TEs grappled with how each strategy gave information
about and supported pre-service teacher learning.
Complexity
Cochran-Smith (2015) argued that “teaching [was] a complex activity, and that unless
policy, research and practice [were] designed to improve teacher quality [to] keep teaching
complex,” it was not likely that we would be able to make the kinds of changes to improve
student understanding and “enrich their life chances” (p. 1). The author made a distinction
between teaching seen as “technical” (p. 3) and teaching seen as “complex” (p. 4).
She explained that the view of teaching as technical assumed that good management
techniques and uniform teaching behaviors essentially meant good teaching. As an example of
technical teaching, Cochran-Smith (2015) referenced Doug Lemov and the strategies in his
popular book Teach Like a Champion. One example from the book was an instructional
technique called “100%.” This technique stated that a teacher should expect all students to give
23

100% of their attention 100% of the time. Another technique included training students to pass
out papers in 10 seconds or fewer. The author argued that these strategies focused on compliance
and obedience (p. 3). While these strategies could be helpful in certain contexts, they were
missing the complexity of teaching. The strategies in and of themselves were not culturally
relevant, were not in sync with students’ local histories, were lacking in the relational aspects of
teaching, and did not support students in creating and generating new ideas.
Cochran-Smith (2015) argued that teaching was complex. It challenged teachers to take a
close look at who their students were and what they brought with them to school to construct
knowledge and improve skills (p. 5). The complex view of teaching saw effective instruction as
posing and solving problems, deliberately making decisions based on the local context,
responding to school or district mandates, and connecting curriculum to their knowledge of
students and communities (p. 4).
Cochran-Smith’s (2015) point was that teaching was highly intellectual, relational, and
complex. It required teachers to be keen observers of students as learners, and to pose very
challenging questions, oftentimes about others or their own practices and assumptions. To
improve teacher quality toward democratic and social justice ends, teaching had to be kept
complex.
As was described in this body of literature, inquiry as stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999) helped us understand the role inquiry could play in teacher education. Two things needed
to be taught by TEs within teacher education: complex, deliberate practice (Ball & Forzani,
2009; Cochran-Smith, 2016); and curriculum and instruction focused on core practices (Forzani,
2014; Grossman et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2013). This body of literature did not address how
24

complex core practice was taught within the teacher education context. It was for this reason that
I turned to the body of literature relating to rehearsals to teach core practices.
Rehearsal as a Tool for Teaching
To teach complex core practices, scholars created rehearsals to be used within cycles of
investigation that enable NTs to approximate the kind of practice that had the potential to lead to
ambitious teaching. This body of literature focuses on scholars who advocated for TEs to teach
core practices through rehearsals. I emphasize that while there were many approaches that
advocated for improved practice within the teacher education literature, I chose to focus
exclusively on rehearsal. Other approaches were explained in the previous section describing
“what needed to be taught.” This body of literature began with Grossman et al. (2009) who
proposed a framework for the teaching of practice. Then, various scholars advocated for the use
of rehearsals to teach core practices (Ghousseini et al., 2015; Lampert et al., 2013; McDonald et
al., 2013). The chapter concludes with Cochran-Smith et al. (2016) who offered a framework for
keeping equity at the center of teacher education.
Grossman, Compton et al. (2009) proposed a framework for thinking about the teaching
of practice in the context of the university: how individuals in the field of teaching, clinical
psychology, and clergy were professionally trained. The purpose of the study was to describe and
analyze the teaching of relational practices in professional education programs within these
fields. Relational practice referred to the ability of professionals to create and cultivate positive,
productive relationships with clients to motivate and engage them to produce results (pp. 2057–
2058). The study was conducted in eight professional education programs located in universities,
schools of professional psychology, and seminaries across the United States. Participants
included students, faculty, and administrators at each of eight professional education programs.
25

The research was designed as a comparative case study using qualitative data of two teacher
education programs, three clinical psychology programs, and three seminaries. Data was
collected for each professional education program in the form of interviews with students,
faculty, and staff; focus groups with students; and observations of coursework and fieldwork.
From this comparative case study, Grossman, Compton et al. (2009) identified three key
concepts that they argued helped to understand the pedagogies of practice in professional
education programs: representations, decompositions, and approximations. Representations
referred to how practice was represented in different professional settings and what the
representations made visible to novices. Decompositions referred to the breaking down of
practice into parts to scaffold learning for novices. Approximations were defined as opportunities
for novices to learn in settings that approximated real life practice. While the study defined and
provided examples of representations, decompositions, and approximations in teaching, clinical
psychology, and clergy, for the purposes of this study, I focused on and presented the definitions
and examples in teaching and the clergy.
Grossman, Compton et al. (2009) observed an elementary literacy classroom where the
TE, Professor Davis, not only presented representations of practice, but also “engaged NTs in a
series of approximations of increasing authenticity” (pp. 2079–2080). The first pedagogical
strategy Professor Davis used was video analysis of a second-grade classroom that focused on
two female students sharing their reading strategies with each other during partner discussion.
NTs were asked to observe the discussion and focus on the students’ reading strategies. This
approximated what a real teacher might do; that is, they might choose to focus in on partner
conversations and take formal or informal note of information they might use in a follow-up
conference with the students.
26

The next activity, a miscue analysis using a developmental reading assessment (DRA),
approximated even more what a real teacher might do. After demonstrating the kind of markings
a teacher might make about a student’s reading using DRA, Professor Davis played an audio clip
of a third grader engaging in DRA. Every NT was then given the opportunity to assess the
students reading by making markings using the DRA, just as a real teacher would have assessed
the student. This activity was more authentic than the video analysis because novices acted as
actual teachers who were assessing a student’s performance, but it was also obviously out of the
context and complexity of a real classroom full of students. The simplification of the activity
allowed NTs to enact the assessment without the added complexity.
In the final activity, which approximated a teacher’s role more than the first two,
Professor Davis asked the teachers to go back to the video of second graders and pretend they
were the teacher who was going to hold a follow-up conference with students about their reading
strategies. NTs were asked to create questions that they would ask the students in preparation for
the conference as they watched the video again. Professor Davis then asked NTs to share their
questions, each one of which Professor Davis responded to with direct feedback. Professor Davis
later noted that NTs were not readily able to create questions relating directly to the students’ use
of reading strategies, which the authors argued highlighted the importance of approximating
practice with rehearsal and guidance. If the NTs had been the real teacher in the second-grade
classroom without this kind of training they might have been unable to support student learning
(Grossman, Compton et al., 2009).
Like the approximations of practice that occurred in the teaching example, Dr. Sims, the
chaplain at Grace Seminary, approximated practice with his team of student worship assistants.
To plan for upcoming worship services, the team met every Wednesday morning. Chapel
27

services at Grace Seminary occurred from 10:15–10:45 a.m. every weekday, and each worship
assistant was given the responsibility of planning a full week of services on their own with
guidance from Dr. Sims. As future pastors, an approximation of practice that pushed the assistant
worshipers to plan daily worship was critical. Each day of planning demanded creativity and
coordination of a multitude of factors, including the overall theme for services and the specific
music throughout (Grossman, Compton et al., 2009).
As each assistant worshiper tried out aspects of the planning and execution of services,
they received guidance and feedback from Dr. Sims. Not only did Dr. Sims hold weekly team
meetings, but he also met with each assistant worshiper individually to consult and confer.
Throughout the planning process, each assistant worshiper bounced ideas and drafts of plans
back and forth with Dr. Sims.
The strategy of requiring worship assistants to plan each day for an entire week allowed
for deeper focus and creativity. Dr. Sims assigned daily scripture readings and his expectation
was that that would be the starting point for worship assistants to plan services. As pastors, the
worship assistants would be expected to coordinate many worship services, but not as frequently
as in the approximation. Students learned that beginning planning early was critical to ensuring
that all parts of the planning were thoroughly thought out. It was unlikely that the worship
assistants would be afforded this type of experience once they were in the field (Grossman,
Compton et al., 2009).
Lampert et al. (2013) explained how practices, principles, and content knowledge were
taught by TEs to NTs in a revamped university methods course for elementary mathematics
teachers that used instructional activities (IAs) and cycles of enactment and investigation (CEIs)
as part of a pedagogical strategy called “rehearsal.” Lampert et al. (2013) analyzed rehearsals by
28

examining interactional exchanges between TEs and NTs in masters-level teacher education
programs across three universities.
The authors were guided by two research questions:
 What do TEs and NTs do together during the kind of rehearsals we have developed to
prepare novices for the complex, interactive work of teaching?
 Where, in what they do, are there opportunities for NTs to learn to enact the
principles, practices, and knowledge entailed in ambitious teaching?
Rehearsals were social settings created by TEs to build NTs’ commitment to teach
ambitiously, and they were designed with the understanding that motivation depended on social
circumstances. Rehearsal involved NTs practicing how to teach rigorous content publicly and
deliberately, which was defined as instruction that was done in and for practice (p. 228), to
students using IAs designed by TEs. It provided TEs with a way to guide and collaboratively
examine appropriate teaching actions (see Figure 1).

29

Figure 1
The Cycle of Enactment and Investigation

Note. From “Keeping It Complex: Using Rehearsals to Support NT Learning of Ambitious
Teaching” by M. Lampert, M. Franke, E. Kazemi, H. Ghousseini, A. Turrou, H. Beasley, A.
Cunard, K. Crowe, 2013, Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), p. 229. Copyright 2013 by Sage
Publications.

Rehearsals happened within the context of CEIs. The CEI began with a class of NTs who
observed the enactment of an IA either inside of a classroom or on video. The principles,
practices, and subject matter knowledge that arose out of the enactment was observed and
analyzed with guidance from the TE. These elements were intentionally embedded into the
enactment by the TE to observe their integration within an actual classroom. Specific teaching
problems that were observed became the focus of the group’s work. The NTs then prepared to
teach the same lesson they observed and analyzed in the enactment to a group of specific
students. After preparing, the NTs taught the lesson to their peers in a rehearsal to get feedback
before trying the lesson with actual students. The rehearsal was meant to approximate practice
30

and help the NT understand how and when to execute instructional strategies. Having anticipated
student actions through rehearsal, the NT then implemented the lesson with actual students and
video recorded their lesson. Guided by the TE, the group then had the opportunity to again
collectively analyze individual performances to determine the principles, practices, and
knowledge executed. The cycle was meant as an iterative process to allow NTs to deliberately
practice ambitious teaching.
The redesigned mathematics methods course that was implemented at all three
universities to practice rehearsals and CEIs was designed with the assumption that teachers were
required to learn to observe, elicit, and interpret student reasoning, arguments, and language and
adjust instruction accordingly to promote learning. The course was designed with the
understanding that to support the explanations given by students, teachers were required not only
to provide clarity and enough time, but also push for justification in response to how students
performed. Moreover, a teacher’s response to students had to reflect the NT’s belief in them as
sense-makers to build relationships that supported rigorous work. These notions were the basis of
the redesign (p. 227).
The study collected both quantitative and qualitative data from 30 video-recorded
rehearsals at each of the three sites, which equaled 90 total rehearsals. The 90 rehearsals
represented a sample of common practice that derived from a larger data set that spanned across
3 years.
A set of codes were developed to track what was worked on (substance) and how it was
worked on (structure). Studiocode, a video-analysis program, was used to code within and across
video-recorded rehearsals for interactions between TEs and NTs. Interactions between TEs and
NTs, which were the focus of the study, were referred to as “TE/NT exchanges” (Lampert et al.,
31

2013). Both structure codes, or codes that highlighted the structure of the interaction, and
substance codes, or codes used to track the substantive focus of the TE/NT exchange, were used.
Given that the quantitative data collected and analyzed by Lampert et al. (2013) was beyond the
scope of my study, the focus was on the qualitative data gathered using substance codes in
relation to the practice of eliciting and responding to students’ ideas. The code eliciting and
responding was used to describe “Eliciting, interpreting, responding to student mathematical
work or talk” (p. 232).
Data was collected around TE/NT exchanges that related to eliciting and responding to
students’ ideas because this practice was a salient component of ambitious teaching, and it was
by far the most frequently occurring interaction across exchanges. It was addressed in over one
third of all exchanges and in 95% of all rehearsals. By analyzing this data, the authors were able
to highlight the different kinds of opportunities provided for both NTs and TEs to work together
on practice (Lampert et al., 2013).
Of the 1,290 exchanges coded, 124 were coded only as eliciting and responding with no
other substance code. All exchanges were first reviewed and described qualitatively in order. The
authors noted that the exchanges were often initiated by TEs and fell into three categories:
 TE scaffolds enactment or TE participated as student to offer examples of student
thinking to which the NT had to respond
 TE provides direct feedback or TE suggested what question to ask next or how to
phrase a question
 TE provides evaluative feedback or TE affirmed the suitability of NT questions using
a form of praise (Lampert et al., 2013)
32

To illustrate TE scaffolds enactment, the authors presented an exchange where a NT was
teaching a group of his or her peers (other NTs). The group was sharing strategies to solve
32+40. To solve the problem, the NT who was teaching the group elicited two different methods,
each of which involved the use of a number line. Participating as a student, the TE then shared a
strategy that no one else had:
NT (teacher): Did anybody do that differently?
TE (student): I sort of did something kind of in the middle. I took two jumps of 20.
NT (teacher): You took two of 20? OK so … you wanted to take one jump of 20
[recording jumps on an open number line with two other strategies that
have been shared] and then another jump of 20 and we still arrive at the
same number. OK, so there’s three different ways that are very similar.
They are just making different jumps. (Lampert et al., 2013, p. 235)
In this case, by presenting a student idea that no one had presented, the TE scaffolded the
enactment to which the NT had to respond.
In the next exchange, the group of students (NTs) was counting up by fours. To determine
how students knew which number came next, the NT leading the enactment stopped to ask the
group. The TE then provided feedback and directed the NT to make a teaching move.
NT (student): I am adding 4 to the ones place only.
TE: See if anyone is thinking about it any differently.
NT (student): Is anyone thinking about it differently than what Sara did? (Lampert et al.,
2013, p. 235)
This interjection, where the TE provided direct feedback about a teaching move, was
immediately taken up by the NT.
33

In the last exchange, the group was counting by threes starting at 55. The NTs, who were
again participating as students, gave ideas about what they noticed about a written number
sequence and how it helped them understand and determine the next number. The NT leading the
group then asked a “why” question to determine how the number sequence on the board helped
the group.
NT (student): I was just adding 15 to the first column.
NT (teacher): [Marking on the count] So, 15, 15, 15. Does anyone know why that is.
Why it’s 15?
TE: That is a good “why” question. (Lampert et al., 2013, p. 235)
Taking note of the “why” question posed by the NT, the TE made a quick comment to
publicly praise and affirm the NTs pedagogical choice (TE provides evaluative feedback).
Lampert et al. (2013) stated that even though the interventions presented were short, they
helped TEs support NTs to learn how and when to elicit and respond to students’ ideas. For
instance, when the TE played the role of the student, the TE drew on his or her knowledge of
how students might respond in a classroom in a similar situation to prompt the NT to respond.
The TE helped the NT see what a productive next move may be by providing direction.
Similarly, by publicly and positively praising the NTs attempt at questioning, the TE affirmed the
NTs choice.
Lampert et al. (2013) “designed rehearsals to approximate ambitious teaching, to provide
shared learning experiences, to develop adaptive performance, and to shape NT’s knowledge,
skill, and identities [to] ground teacher education centrally in clinical practice” (p. 238). Two of
three findings from this study were shared as they were most relevant to the topic addressed in
this article. The first is that rehearsals provided opportunities for NTs to practice adaptive
34

performance. The second is that rehearsals supported the development of NTs’ knowledge, skill,
and commitment.
Rehearsals, as structured by Lampert et al. (2013), supported NTs in reconsidering,
retrying, and receiving feedback on aspects of practice toward ambitious teaching. This work
involved routine as well as more complex aspects. For example, NTs had the opportunity to
practice creating student thinking representations on the board as well as receive feedback on
their attempts at eliciting and responding to students’ ideas. In rehearsal, the TE supported
complex performance by scaffolding learning, providing direct feedback, and providing
evaluative feedback. This ability to scaffold adaptive performance enabled NTs to approximate
the complexity of teaching and discover what they were doing in relation to the underlying
principles, practices, and knowledge of teaching.
In rehearsals, NTs worked collaboratively with TEs and were able to “try on” aspects of
ambitious teaching to develop their own knowledge, skill, and commitment. For instance, NTs
had the opportunity to develop knowledge and skill in eliciting and responding to students’ ideas.
NTs also had the opportunity to hear their peers, or the TE praise their work, adjust teaching to
observations in the moment, treat students as sense-makers, and practice rigorous instructional
strategies. Through the constant, collaborative work with peers and the TE, NTs were able to
normalize a sense of high expectations for all students (Lampert et al., 2013).
Working with a group of peers and a TE and taking on the principles of ambitious
teaching publicly allowed teachers to build knowledge, skill, commitment, and adapt their
performance systematically.
McDonald et al. (2013) offered a framework for learning to enact core practices, which
they called the “learning cycle” (p. 381). The learning cycle was intended to guide teachers in
35

learning to enact core practices through four distinct phases: “introducing and learning,”
“preparing and rehearsing,” “enacting,” and “analyzing enactment and moving forward” (p.
382). Each phase was paired with specific pedagogies that TEs were meant to enact during that
phase (see Figure 2).

Figure 2
Learning Cycle

Note. From “Core Practices and Pedagogies of Teacher Education” by M. McDonald, E. Kazemi,
& S. S. Kavanagh, 2013, Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), p. 382. Copyright 2013 by Sage
Publications.

36

To better understand the learning cycle in the context of teacher education, the authors
offered an example of a first step a TE might take in teaching NTs to elicit student thinking,
which was defined as “drawing out students’ ideas about content and responding to those ideas in
ways that move students’ learning forward” (McDonald et al., 2013, p. 382). First, the practice
was embedded into an IA to create a real-life situation that a NT could learn from. The IA created
a “container” for a NT to be able to rehearse “the relational and improvisational work that
teaching requires” (McDonald et al., 2013, p. 383). A well-designed IA was also able to help NTs
practice attending to how students’ ideas were given voice through participation structures that
placed children as competent sense-makers. IAs were also able to challenge teachers’
preconceived ideas about who could learn and what was meant by learning in a classroom. IAs
were used as “common texts” that NTs could learn from collectively.
At the University of Washington in Sarah Kavanaugh’s secondary social studies class,
eliciting student thinking was embedded into a variety of IAs, one of which was called Sourcing
Documents (McDonald et al., 2013, p. 383). Lasting approximately 10–15 minutes, this IA
offered NTs a participation structure for facilitating student talk about the purpose and origin of
certain documents. A variety of structured supports were used to help NTs elicit student thinking,
create a plan for elicitation, and use the enactment to leverage future professional learning.
Once NTs completed an IA, the TE used representations of practice, such as modeling,
video analysis, or case analysis, to help NTs develop an image of the practice under study. With a
vision of the practice in mind, NTs might have moved to Quadrant 2, planning for and rehearsing
for practice. There, NTs had the opportunity to collaboratively lesson plan and rehearse the plan
in the context of their university-based methods course. The TE and NTs in the group then
37

debriefed by providing feedback on the rehearsal and helping revise the plan (McDonald et al.,
2013).
After preparing for enactment via rehearsal, NTs were able to move to Quadrant 3,
enacting the activity with students. TEs were able to support NTs though enactment via live
coaching (in-the-moment) or live modeling. NTs were able to record their lesson or collect
artifacts for future study.
After enactment, NTs would move into Quadrant 4, analyzing enactment and moving
forward, which was meant to support NTs in learning from their own practice. At this stage, the
group of NTs worked together to analyze the enactment and assign meaning to practice. The
learning cycle was intended to provide a vision for the professional learning of NTs around the
skillful enactment of core practices (McDonald et al., 2013).
Ghousseini et al. (2015) addressed two questions: “What problem space [arose] for
novices when they use[d] an enactment tool in the context of learning a complex interactive
practice like teaching?” “How [could] this problem space [have afforded] opportunities for
novices and instructors, as more competent others, to connect tools to goals in ways that guide[d]
novices’ adaptive practice?” (p. 463). The authors investigated these questions in the context of
rehearsal embedded within cycles of enactment and investigation because it afforded the ability
to approximate practice. A problem space was defined as a situation that posed a problem where
a NT could work through his or her understanding of a particular practice (p. 467).
“Opportunities” were defined as “types of interpersonal engagements and involvement with
particular resources that [were] available to NTs in a particular context” (Ghousseini et al., 2015,
p. 463). The authors sought to teach NTs to connect tools to goals centered on ambitious teaching
and a set of professional commitments (See Table 1).
38

Table 1
Professional Commitments of Ambitious Teaching
Commitment category Description
Students are
sensemakers.
An ambitious teacher seeks to understand how students are
making sense of the content, positions students as sensemakers
by providing opportunities for them to reason about content,
and prepares activities such that students are responsible for
doing serious mathematical work.
Participation and
equitable access
An ambitious teacher must design instruction for all students to do
rigorous academic work in school and to have equitable access
to learning. An ambitious teacher assumes that all students, no
matter their current skill or competency, are capable of
ambitious learning. He or she seeks to differentiate instruction
in ways that enable all students with different backgrounds and
learning trajectories to make progress.
Clear instructional goals An ambitious teacher plans activities and carries them out with
clear instructional goals in mind. These learning goals are often
linked to big ideas in academic disciplines. The teacher must
know the content in ways that enable him or her to help
students learn it.
Knowledge of students as
learners
Teachers must know their students’ individual strengths, habits,
and troubles as well as who students are as learners—what they
know and hope to know, how they best work, and how they see
themselves.

Note. From “Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of
Ambitious Teaching” by Ghousseini, H., Beasley, H., & Lord, S. 2015, Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 24(3), p. 478. Copyright 2015 by Routledge.

A sequence of four questions was used across different IAs to scaffold the elicitation
work that NTs would need to do. The questions were:
 What did you get (or see)?
 Did anyone see (or get) anything different?
 How did you see it (or figure it out)?
39

 Did anyone see it (or figure it out) in a different way? (Ghousseini et al., 2015, p.
471)
The first two questions helped NTs get possible solutions to mathematical problems and
the last two questions helped NTs elicit student reasoning or use of strategies.
The context of the study was a six-week mathematics methods course offered in the first
year of a teacher education credentialing program for elementary mathematics teacher
candidates. The class was taught by two TEs at a summer learning institute (SLI) and was a joint
venture between a school district and teacher education program in the Midwest. The institute
served as the site of a 4-week summer remedial intervention program for approximately 140
rising third graders with varying mathematics abilities. The institute also served as the site for
training 25 NTs through the methods course.
The week before the start of the SLI, NTs were introduced to a set of mathematics
concepts and a set of professional commitments meant to guide their work with children at the
institute. The last week was scheduled for review and assessment. During the four weeks, NTs
had opportunities to teach four different 15-minute IAs to students at the institute. The four IAs
were titled Games, Quick Images, Choral Counting, and Strings. The IAs were meant to get
progressively more complex to scaffold how NTs dealt with instructional complexity. To prepare
to teach the IAs, NTs participated in daily cycles of enactment and investigation. The IAs were
structured to allow NTs to move from rehearsal immediately to teaching children. The NTs then
had an opportunity to investigate, with the TEs and the other NTs, any issues that came up in
their teaching. There were two 40-minute rehearsal periods per day during which half the group
of NTs participated. For each IA, NTs were divided into two groups to allow each TE to coach
six to seven NTs. Between one and three NTs rehearsed per group and TEs would then observe
40

those NTs teach children. Afterward, the TEs debriefed themes from the observations and
incorporated those into future IAs to continue to guide practice (Ghousseini et al., 2015).
Nineteen video recorded rehearsals were analyzed from a larger pool of 80 that were
recorded in the methods course in 2012. The sample represented two weeks of TE-facilitated
rehearsals that were chosen because they focused on two particular IAs, Quick Images and
Strings, which required NTs to pose sets of related problems and use a variation of the question
sequence to elicit student solutions and strategies. These IAs allowed NTs to get repeated
opportunities to use the question sequence, to try variations of questions, and to manage a variety
of student responses. Focusing on those repeated opportunities allowed the authors to capture the
range of work that took place at the SLI (Ghousseini et al., 2015).
Studiocode was used to code the recorded rehearsals. Timelines were created for each of
the 19 videos and analytic codes were applied throughout to help answer the research questions.
The substance of TE/NT exchanges was analyzed and focused on two areas: issues that arose
with practice and whether there was an explicit connection to any of the professional
commitments of ambitious teaching.
The authors found that throughout the rehearsals, TEs had opportunities to guide NTs to
adapt the wording of questions in the question sequence enactment tool, adapt the order of the
questions, and connect NT practice of eliciting and responding to professional commitments of
ambitious teaching (Ghousseini et al., 2015).
One example of how a TE guided NT learning around connecting practice to professional
commitments and adapting the wording of questions in the question sequence occurred when a
rehearsing NT (R-NT) used the question sequence in the following way during a rehearsal:
41

R-NT So you did not use the number line? [Student: No] That is a different
strategy to get to 58.
Unsure of how to deal with that response, the R-NT paused to ask the TE if the problem
should be set up like a traditional algorithm. The NT playing the student was representing the
fact that a student the NT had taught previously persisted in using the standard algorithm to solve
the problem. Part of the objective of the IA was to have students use the open number line, not
the standard algorithm, to calculate two-digit sums. The TE responded to the R-NT in a way that
connected the R-NTs practice to a professional commitment of ambitious teaching.
TE: [The student] needs to know that it is okay to do it that way because this is
the only way she knows how. She doesn’t know how to use the open
number line yet. So you are going to have to do work to say, “Yes, that’s a
strategy.” You could show it quickly, and then, she needs to see the open
number line a couple of times and you need to help engage her in making
sense of other people’s strategies with the open number line. (Ghousseini
et al., 2015, p. 480)
The TE connected the R-NTs practice to the professional commitment of treating students
as sense makers, and still honored the objective of the IA.
The R-NT then wondered how to phrase the question.
R-NT: Should I have asked, “Did anyone else use the number line in a different
way?” or would that be too leading?
This response reflected the R-NTs commitment to treat students as sense makers by
allowing them to do intellectual work. The TE responded by affirming this reasoning noting that
42

the suggested rewording of the question might not allow her to accurately understand student
thinking.
TE: If the standard algorithm is the only way [the student] knows, you need to
know that so that you can say [to yourself], “Okay, I have to figure out
how to get her making sense of this new tool because she doesn’t know
how to use it yet. So where can I do that?” So right before you go in [to do
this IA], you might plan what questions you would ask this particular
student in relation to an open number line strategy. And then maybe on the
third problem, you can come over to the student and support her a little bit.
You can say, “We are going to use the open number line this time. Which
number should we start with first?” You can do this kind of scaffolding to
support her learning. (Ghousseini et al., 2015, p. 481)
This example represented the kind of guided participation observed in the TE/NT
exchanges. The example showed that even though NTs had a sense of the professional
commitments, they still benefitted from scaffolding by the TE. The TE modeled the kind of
judgment involved in adapting practice in ways that attend to the professional commitments of
ambitious teaching. This study illustrated the potential of guided practice with an enactment tool
for supporting the learning of adaptive practice.
Cochran-Smith et al. (2016) asked, “What would it take to put equity front and center in
initial teacher education?” (p. 68). The authors theorized that four essential tasks (see Figure 3)
were needed:
 The problems of educational inequality and inequity and the role of initial teacher
education in challenging those problems would need to be conceptualized.
43

 “Practice for equity” would need to be defined assuming that the role of initial teacher
education was to produce teachers who enacted practices to meet the needs of
traditionally underserved students.
 Programs, systems, and structures would need to be designed within initial teacher
education in order to challenge inequity according to local histories and contexts.
 Equity-centered research programs would need to be created to study teaching for
equity, programs that challenge inequity would need to be continuously improved,
and theory would need to be developed around how, why, to what extent, and under
what conditions NTs learned to teach for equity (p. 68).
Cochran-Smith et al. (2016) conceptualized and elaborated on each of the four tasks in
relation to theoretical and empirical literature.

44

Figure 3
Initial Teacher Education for Equity: Four Essential Tasks

Note. From “Initial Teacher Education for Equity: Four Essential Tasks. From Initial Teacher
Education: What Does It Take to Put Equity at the Center?” by M. Cochran-Smith, F. Ell, L.
Grudnoff, M. Haigh, M. Hill, L. Ludlow, 2016, Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, p. 68.
Copyright 2016 by Elsevier Ltd.

The authors defined initial teacher education for equity as “a commitment to justice and
fairness based on the assumption that in many countries … educational opportunities, resources,
and outcomes are unequally and unfairly distributed among groups differentiated by
race/ethnicity/language, socioeconomic status, gender, and disability” (p. 69). Initial teacher
education programs that sought to mitigate inequality and/or inequity existed in countries like
New Zealand, but there were many assumptions about the sources and solutions to the problems.
45

To illustrate what was meant by task two, the authors described “patterns of practice for
equity,” which was created by synthesizing international programs of research. Cochran-Smith et
al. (2016) reasoned that if there were similar findings about successful practice for non-dominant
and dominant students across diverse settings within the very different international programs of
research, then the underlying principles found could have formed the basis of initial teacher
education for equity. By using directed qualitative content analysis and an iterative process, six
principles of practice were identified:
 selecting worthwhile content and designing and implementing learning opportunities
aligned to valued learning outcomes
 connecting to students' lives and experiences
 creating learning-focused, respectful, and supportive learning environments
 using evidence to scaffold learning and improve teaching
 adopting an inquiry stance and taking responsibility for professional engagement and
learning
 recognizing and challenging classroom, school, and societal practices that reproduce
inequity (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016, p. 71)
The authors based the six principles in their assumptions that systems of inequality were
pervasive in schools and society and teachers, as human beings, were responsible for enacting
practice that led to positive outcomes for marginalized students. They emphasized that these
were general principles of practice, not specific behaviors or actions.
Built on the six principles, the patterns of practice for equity represented attitudes,
knowledge, and actions that captured three ideas:
 practice was not just what teachers did in the moment
46

 teaching for equity was a complex task
 despite the differences in specific actions taken by teachers because of differing
contexts, regularities could be seen over time
These ideas were critical because they meant that patterns of practice for equity could be
taught and learned in initial teacher education (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016). Putting equity at the
center meant that TEs had to teach, and NTs had to learn to construct patterns of practice within
local contexts and histories that were aligned with the six principles. Cochran-Smith et al. (2016)
emphasized that this notion of “patterns of practice for equity” explicitly rejected the idea of a
“theory-practice gap” because “teacher’s understandings, actions, and commitments to
improving marginalized students’ learning and their life chances” were one in the same. The
authors emphasized that teacher practice and broader visions of teaching, curriculum, and
context were required to put equity at the center.
This body of literature highlighted the importance of teaching practice (Grossman et al.,
2009), using rehearsals to teach core practices (Ghousseini et al., 2015; Lampert et al., 2013;
McDonald et al., 2013), and keeping equity at the center of teacher education (Cochran-Smith et
al., 2016). The literature in this section did not address how to teach other skills that are critical
to enabling NTs to engage in ambitious teaching. The next section deals with how TEs can teach
one of those skills: reflection.
Reflection/Critical Reflection
Reflection was a critical skill that TEs must teach to NTs to empower them to be
reflective practitioners who engage in ambitious teaching. I intentionally chose scholars whose
research dealt with teaching reflection to NTs, especially in the context of culturally relevant
pedagogy. This section begins with a typology for reflection offered by Jay and Johnson (2002).
47

Howard (2003) explained how TEs could promote culturally relevant pedagogy through
reflection. Milner (2003) described how TEs could get NTs to pose tough questions to reflect on
their own racial competence. This section concludes with Gay and Kirkland’s (2003)
presentation of cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in pre-service teacher
education.
Jay and Johnson (2002) explained the process of reflection for NTs, defined the construct
of reflection in teacher education, provided a typology of reflection to help guide TEs in teaching
reflection to NTs, and described how reflective practice was integrated into one university-based
pre-service teacher education program.
For NTs in pre-service teacher education, reflection was a process that included
describing the situation, surfacing assumptions, and proceeding in a purposeful, open-minded
way. Reflection for NTs included logical thinking as well as emotion, passion, and intuition.
Essentially, NT reflection was a process of thinking about how one’s beliefs, attitudes, and
experiences as well as one’s moral, political, and social stances directed one’s practice (Jay &
Johnson, 2002).
With these considerations in mind, Jay and Johnson (2002) defined reflection as:
a process, both individual and collaborative, [that involved] experience and uncertainty. It
[was] comprised of identifying questions and key elements of a matter that … emerged as
significant, then taking one’s thoughts into dialogue with oneself and with others. One
evaluate[d] insights gained from that process with reference to:
 additional perspectives
 one’s own values, experiences, and beliefs
 the larger context within which the questions [were] raised
48

Through reflection, one reache[d] newfound clarity, on which one base[d] changes in
action or disposition. New questions naturally [arose], and the process spiral[ed] onward.
(p. 76)
NTs who were reflective focused on an aspect of their teaching, reframed that issue by
analyzing it from a variety of perspectives, engaged in dialogue with colleagues to explore that
aspect of their teaching further, and took purposeful action based on their newfound
understanding of the issue and their own ethical beliefs.
Jay and Johnson (2002) presented a typology of reflection to help guide TEs in teaching
reflection to NTs in pre-service teacher education (see Table 2).

49

Table 2
Typology of Reflection: Dimensions and Guiding Questions
Dimension Definition Typical questions
Descriptive Describe the
matter for
reflection.
What is happening? Is this working, and for whom? For
whom is it not working? How do I know? How am I
feeling? What am I pleased and/or concerned about?
What do I understand? Does this related to any of my
stated goals, and to what extent are they being met?
Comparative Reframe the
matter for
reflection in
light of
alternative
views, others’
perspectives,
research, etc.
What are alternative views of what is happening? How do
other people who are directly or indirectly involved
describe and explain what’s happening? What does the
research contribute to an understanding of this matter?
How can I improve what’s not working? If there is a
goal, what are some other ways of accomplishing it?
How do other people accomplish this goal? For each
perspective and alternative, who is served and who is
not?
Critical Having
considered the
implications of
the matter,
establish a
renewed
perspective.
What are the implications of the matter when viewed from
these alternative perspectives? Given these various
alternatives, their implications, and my own morals and
ethics, which is best for this particular matter? What is
the deeper meaning of what is happening, in terms of
public democratic purposes of schooling? What does this
matter reveal about the moral and political dimension of
schooling? How does this reflective process inform and
renew my perspective?

Note. From “Capturing Complexity: A Typology of Reflective Practice for Teacher Education”
by J. Jay and K. Johnson, 2002, Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), p. 77. Copyright 2001
by Elsevier Science Ltd.

The typology included three dimensions: descriptive, comparative, and critical. The
authors explained that a typology served as a tool to demystify and make accessible the powerful
tool of reflection. It was emphasized that reflection was not a linear process as could be
suggested by the typology.
50

At the University of Washington’s teacher education program (TEP), reflective practice
was modeled by TEs through weekly seminars in a community of discourse. The typology was
used to both encourage and model reflective practice. The seminar served as a place to explore
problems of practice to bridge the theory-practice gap. NTs were paired with TE mentors who
facilitated reflective discussions and used the typology as a tool (Jay & Johnson, 2002).
NTs were asked to create a portfolio to represent their individual understanding of
effective teaching. Each artifact in the portfolio was accompanied by an entry slip framed around
the typology. Along with information about the artifact, the NT was expected to write a
descriptive, comparative, and critical reflection about the artifact. The goal of the portfolio was
to help NTs reflect on their own personal practice and theoretical perspectives. TE mentors
reviewed each artifact in each portfolio and provided feedback based on the typology of
reflection.
The authors pointed out that teaching NTs to reflect involved more than a reflective
seminar and portfolio creation. Teaching reflection required TEs to create a team of TE mentors
to partner with NTs, a course sequence to make reflection systematic, various reflective
assignments, and a culture of trust (Jay & Johnson, 2002).
Milner (2003) argued that NTs might need to reflect about race and racial competence in
preparation to teach racially diverse students. He addressed the question “How do TEs prepare
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions about issues of race?” The author discussed the
notion of critical pedagogy and offered two teaching strategies, critically engaged dialogue and
race reflective journaling, that TEs could use to help NTs become more racially competent.
Milner suggested that through critical pedagogy, TEs could develop teaching strategies to
help NTs address issues of race. Critical pedagogy was defined as “a form of instruction, which
51

reject[ed] oppression, combat[ed] injustice, [gave] voice to marginalized people, [fought] the
maintaining of the status quo; and … encourage[d] instruction that promote[d] radical action in
the classroom and beyond” (Milner, 2003, p. 199). He advanced two teacher education strategies
to promote reflection on race: NTs’ critical engaged dialogue and NTs’ race reflective journaling.
First, Milner suggested that to critically engage NTs in dialogue, TEs could allow NTs to
use their personal experiences, and not simply relevant research literature, to support their points.
The idea here was that NTs’ experiences were “‘valid’” and did not need to be substantiated
solely by scholarly literature. Through critically engaged dialogue, where NTs and TEs engaged
each other and accepted each other’s experiences as valid in discussing issues of race, NTs had
the opportunity to engage often-controversial issues or perspectives. Given that discourse and
dialogue were powerful, it was important that NTs reflected on issues of race before speaking. To
have rich, candid discussions, it was necessary for TEs to create an environment where NTs
could share their perspectives and positions on issues of race. TEs had to show they were
comfortable and supportive of those positions. TEs could provide spaces for NTs to reflect and
dialogue and those practices could transfer to other facets of their work outside the teacher
education classroom. Critically engaged dialogue provided TEs with a strategy for discussion
and reflection that balanced the power in the classroom and offered the opportunity for everyone
present to learn from each other (Milner, 2003).
Milner (2003) proposed a second strategy: race reflective journaling that TEs could elicit
from NTs through guided questions about race. Race reflective journaling was possibly a more
appropriate approach given that NTs felt safer writing about their views on race rather than
openly dialoguing with others. The role of the TE was to pose problem-solving questions to NTs
to elicit thought around problems of practice in teacher-student interactions. One goal of race
52

reflective journaling was for TEs to elicit NT thinking about their own and others’ privilege, or
lack thereof, in the world. This awareness of privilege or lack thereof was used as the foundation
to overcome problems of practice or to empower teachers to find solutions that were racially
competent. The idea was that once NTs understood oppression, they could work to dismantle it in
their work with students and in schools. TEs could make the practice of race reflection standard
in their work with NTs (Milner, 2003).
Gay and Kirkland (2003) argued that NTs had to be taught to develop “personal and
professional critical consciousness about racial, cultural, and ethnic diversity” (p. 181). The
authors believed that culturally responsive teaching (CRT) needed to be a critical component of
teacher education. CRT was defined as “using the cultures, experiences, and perspectives of
African, Native, Latino, and Asian American students as filters through which to teach them
academic knowledge and skills” (Gay & Kirkland, 2003, p. 181). This included unpacking
inequality and teaching cultural competence to students of color. The authors believed that
critical racial and cultural consciousness was just as important as instructional effectiveness and
that was why self-reflection in pre-service teacher education was so important. Gay and Kirkland
(2003) outlined barriers to developing cultural critical consciousness and techniques that TEs
could use to offset those challenges.
The authors explained general and specific problems that NTs in teacher education faced
in developing cultural critical consciousness. One general problem was not knowing how to self-
reflect and confusing description for deeper analysis of one’s beliefs. Another general problem
was that NTs were given few opportunities within teacher education to self-reflect. Other general
challenges had to do with traditional beliefs about teacher education as technical and objective
practice that was reflected by the notion that good teaching was the same everywhere (p. 182).
53

One specific challenge to learning cultural critical consciousness was the tendency of
NTs to divert attention away from issues of race and avoid explicitly discussing their own
potential biases or beliefs. For example, when faced with a problem of practice, NTs were more
likely to skirt issues of race and shift the focus of analysis to issues of class and individuality.
They seemed unable to find culturally responsive ways of tackling underachievement or to think
about how their own preconceived notions played a role in student achievement.
A second challenge to developing critical reflection was silence. When NTs were asked to
discuss issues of race, they chose not to say anything. This created a situation whereby the TE
had to carry the conversation around race and provide all the examples, analysis, or interpretation
(p. 183). The TE self-reflected while the NTs listened.
Another obstacle to learning critical reflection in pre-service teacher education included
invalidating issues related to race by pointing out exceptions. It was common to hear a NT say he
or she knew someone from a particular ethnic group and claim that person had acted in a way
that was not consistent with the topic of discussion. This type of reaction was problematic
because it reflected a presumption and sense of privilege that one experience outranked a trend
or cultural phenomena observed through extensive research and practice (p. 184).
A final barrier to learning critical reflection was claiming “benevolent liberalism” or
“guilt over past acts of oppression, injustice, and marginalization.” This was reflected by
statements like, “Yes, but students of color have to live and work in the U.S., so they need to
learn to be American like everyone else,” and “If I teach them according to their cultural styles,
won’t the White kids be discriminated against, and won’t I be lowering my educational
standards?” (p. 184). Statements like these made by NTs reflected the idea that because NTs were
aware of the history of racism and oppression in the United States, it was okay for them to
54

promote equality for all students. Some NTs even believed that racism in the United States was a
non-issue and a thing of the past that had been resolved. NTs that believed this naively evoked
color-blindness and universality as their approach to classroom instruction. This approach,
however, originated from a set of values and beliefs inconsistent with democratic educational
principles and professional commitments.
Gay and Kirkland (2003) believed that one important strategy to overcome resistance to
critical consciousness and self-reflection was for teacher education programs to explicitly create
systems and structures where the practices of critical consciousness and self-reflection were the
norm (p. 184). While inner dialogue was very important, dialogue with others was also
prioritized. In their own teacher education classes, the authors had students create multicultural
mission statements and examine the effects of cultural hegemony. Using cooperative learning
strategies, students in these classes dramatized or role-played situations from different cultural
perspectives. The authors believed that by converting knowledge from one medium to another
and receiving constructive feedback, NTs had valuable practice in critical consciousness and self-
reflection. These strategies helped NTs build confidence in disrupting issues of educational
equity for ethnically diverse students.
Another strategy Gay and Kirkland (2003) employed was modeling critical racial and
cultural consciousness in their own teaching. During episodes of teaching, the TEs stopped to
discuss their own interpretations and culturally responsive approaches to teaching. TEs also
pointed NTs to a variety of sources, including research, autobiographies, observations, and
personal opinions. The TEs revealed where within the discussions they were expressing their
personal biases, introspective thoughts, and insights.
55

The TEs asked students to critically reflect using a series of questions. Students were
eventually expected to do their own “nondirective reflective analyses of the instructor’s, their
own, and each other’s pedagogical conversations” (Gay & Kirkland, 2003, p. 185).
The TEs provided NTs with frequent and multiple opportunities to practice critical
reflection through class projects. Projects were designed to allow students to share their
perspectives and opinions on the cultural hegemony embedded in American schools. Students
had opportunities to modify K–12 curriculum to make it more culturally responsive.
One technique the authors found effective with teaching critical consciousness was the
use of poetry in examining social issues from different perspectives. Students had opportunities
to observe “‘ethnic others’” and deconstruct the notion that “they are just like us” (Gay &
Kirkland, 2003, p. 186).
The TEs guided NTs in creating opportunities to translate the principles of cultural
critical consciousness into instructional practice in K–12 classrooms. This was done through
cooperative learning projects using realistic situations.
Lastly, NTs practiced deconstructing and reconstructing American symbols, icons, and
holidays to make them more inclusive of cultural diversity (Gay & Kirkland, 2003).
Howard (2003) argued that learning how to critically reflect about the race and culture of
self and others was prerequisite to NT development of culturally relevant teaching strategies. He
argued that the role of TEs was to help NTs analyze race, ethnicity, and culture and recognize
how these impact student learning. The author explained why race and culture were important in
teaching and learning, why critical reflection was a tool to develop culturally relevant teaching
strategies, and what questions NTs could ask themselves to begin to develop anti-racist
56

pedagogy. He discussed a case study from a teacher education course he taught as an example of
what TEs could do to support the practice of critical reflection and culturally relevant teaching.
African American and Latino students were projected to make up over half of all students
in the United States, yet the academic achievement of both groups had been abysmal for decades
(Howard, 2003, p. 196). Both groups had students who were overrepresented amongst special
needs populations. Therefore, there was an obvious need to rethink the pedagogical strategies
employed in schools. It was important for educators to understand that the cultural capital that
students brought with them to school was an asset. There was a clear need to reconceptualize
teaching in a way that respected cultural and racial differences.
Critical reflection was a tool that required individuals to pay attention to how experiences
and behaviors informed future decision-making. Critical reflection was defined as “reflection
within moral, political, and ethical contexts of teaching” that pertained to issues of “equity,
access, and social justice,” which derived from Dewey’s conception of “‘reflective action’”
(Howard, 2003, p. 197). To be culturally relevant, an individual had to reject a deficit mindset
about African American, Latino, and other culturally diverse students. Critical reflection
challenged NTs to see how their positionality positively or negatively impacted students.
Howard (2003) outlined three essential components of critical reflection: (a) first, NTs
had to acknowledge that deficit mindsets about African American, Latino, and other culturally
diverse students permeated schools and school systems and critique their own practices to ensure
they were not perpetuating those notions; (b) second, the cultural capital that students brought
with them to school was an asset; (c) and third, teachers who sought to use culturally relevant
teaching strategies were mindful of traditional, Eurocentric practices and were careful to use a
wide range of strategies to meet the needs of all learners (p. 198). Thus, critical reflection was
57

useful in helping NTs see how their own thoughts, beliefs, and actions positively or negatively
impacted learning for all students.
Posing questions that elicited critical reflection was difficult and answering them
honestly was even harder. The author offered a set of critical reflection questions that NTs should
consider as they worked to develop an anti-racist pedagogy:
1. How frequently and what types of interactions did I have with individuals from racial
back- grounds different from my own growing up?
2. Who were the primary persons that helped to shape my perspectives of individuals
from different racial groups? How were their opinions formed?
3. Have I ever harbored prejudiced thoughts to- wards people from different racial
backgrounds?
4. If I do harbor prejudiced thoughts, what effects do such thoughts have on students
who come from those backgrounds?
5. Do I create negative profiles of individuals who come from different racial
backgrounds? (Howard, 2003, p. 198)
Honest answers to these questions had the potential to help NTs to understand how their
own thoughts, beliefs, and perspectives developed and how they might begin to develop an anti-
racist pedagogy.
As part of a team of faculty members, Howard (2003) created a course called “Identity
and Teaching.” The purpose of the class was to have NTs inquire about their own notions and
identities. NTs grappled with questions such as “Who am I? What do I believe? Does who I am
and what I believe have ramifications for the students I teach?” NTs in the class engaged with
58

readings and activities that pertained to their own gender, ethnic, racial, and social classes. As
part of the class, NTs reflected on notions of privilege.
While many NTs expressed how they had avoided topics dealing with race because it had
been viewed as taboo, the TEs found that not allowing NTs to avoid these issues was important
(Howard, 2003). The TEs also found that it was important to model deep introspection and
critical reflection for NTs on the ways the TEs have personally grappled with their own beliefs
toward issues dealing with their own and others’ race. In fact, the ability to facilitate critical
reflection required a critical examination of one’s own race-related values, beliefs, and
perspectives.
Howard (2003) offered five suggestions for how TEs could support NTs in translating
critical reflection into culturally relevant teaching:
1. Ensure that teacher education faculty members are able to sufficiently address the
complex nature of race, ethnicity, and culture.
2. Be aware that reflection is a never-ending process.
3. Be explicit about what to reflect about.
4. Recognize that teaching is not a neutral act.
5. Avoid reductive notions of culture. (pp. 200–201)
To help NTs be explicit about what to reflect about, the author offered the following
reflective questions:
 What is the racial breakdown of students who are referred for special needs services?
 What is the racial breakdown for students referred for gifted education or AP courses?
 How frequently do I differentiate instruction?
59

 Do scoring rubrics give inherent advantages for certain ways of knowing and
expression?
 Do I allow culturally based differences in language, speech, reading, and writing to
shape my perceptions about students’ cognitive ability?
 Do I create a multitude of ways to evaluate students? Or do I rely solely on paper,
pencil, and oral responses? How often do I allow nontraditional means of assessment,
such as role-playing, skits, poetry, rap, self-evaluations, Socratic seminars, journaling,
student-led conferences, or cooperative group projects, to be a part of my class?
(Howard, 2003, p. 200)
This critical reflection process enabled NTs to recognize the wide variety of differences
that existed, avoid stereotyping profiles of students, and begin to develop culturally relevant
teaching strategies.
This body of literature explained how TEs could teach NTs to capture complexity through
reflection (Jay & Johnson, 2002), to use reflection to promote culturally relevant pedagogy
(Howard, 2003) and racial competence (Milner, 2003), and to develop cultural critical
consciousness through reflection (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). The question remained, “What does
the TE have to do?” To answer this question, we turn to the final body of literature.
The Role of the Teacher Educator
TEs played a critical role in the context of pre-service teacher education. To enable NTs
to engage in ambitious teaching, TEs needed to hold specific knowledge and skills. The final
body of literature dealt with what TEs must be able to do within pre-service teacher education to
adequately prepare NTs for the challenges of ambitious teaching. The chapter begins with Carol
Rodgers’s (2002) articulation of the role that reflection plays in learning to take intelligent
60

action. Afterward, scholars present research on what TEs must be able to do within teacher
education: be present (Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006), be ready to deal with NT ignorance and
resistance (Garrett & Segall, 2013), prepare and develop professionally (Loughran, 2014), and
model pedagogical inquiry (McCarthy, 2018).
Reflect and Teach Reflection
Rodgers (2002) presented a framework for reflection in teacher pre-service and in-service
contexts, the four-phase reflective cycle (see Figure 4), and analyzed how a TE’s presence, use
of description, analysis, and experimentation helped groups of teachers to slow down and attend
to student learning in rich and nuanced ways. One focus of this paper was to highlight how
reflection was in relation to the pre-service context. Rodgers (2002) argued that supportive and
reflective communities of teachers could help individual teachers understand that their teaching
was in service of student learning.

61

Figure 4
The Reflective Cycle

Note. From “Seeing Student Learning: Teacher Change and the Role of Reflection” by R.
Rodgers, 2002, Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), p. 235. Copyright 2002 by President and
Fellows of Harvard College.

According to Rodgers (2002), the reflective cycle had the power “to slow down teachers’
thinking so that they can attend to what is rather than what they wish were so, and then to shift
the weight of that thinking from their own teaching to their students’ learning” (p. 231). The
four-phase cycle had two goals. The first goal of the reflective cycle was to develop teacher
capacity to think critically and observe skillfully to understand what that told them about context,
subject matter, and teaching. Based on the understanding that emerged, the second goal was to
take intelligent action. The reflective cycle was meant to help teachers be more aware of
complexity and build community (p. 232). Reflection was possible either in the moment of an
62

experience (reflection-in-action) or before or after an experience (reflection-on-action).
Anticipating student responses for an upcoming lesson or a debrief conversation with a teacher’s
coach after a lesson was reflection-on-action. A teacher adjusting a decision based on an
unexpected occurrence in class was an example of reflection-in-action (p. 234).
The first phase of the reflective cycle was presence in experience or learning to see.
Rodgers (2002) stated that the ultimate outcome of reflection had to be student learning. For that
to have occurred, a teacher needed to be present since the more present a teacher was, the more
the teacher could perceive what was happening, the greater the chance for intelligent action.
Presence was defined as “seeing learning, differentiating its parts, giving it meaning, and
responding intelligently—in the moment and from moment to moment” (p. 235). When a teacher
was fully present, he or she did not assume. Instead, he or she sought to be fully aware of how
students were learning, and he or she also possessed a deep knowledge of subject matter.
Rodgers (2002) stated that presence was less about engagement, or the appearance of
learning, and more about understanding, through inquiry, what students were learning and how
they were learning it. Without this understanding, a teacher was not able to provide intelligent
action (p. 237).
The next phase, description, was defined as “the process of telling the story of an
experience” and “the differentiation and naming of an experience’s diverse and complex
elements so that it can be looked at, seen, and told from as many different perspectives as
possible” (p. 237). A teacher who was describing an experience at a proficient level avoided
jumping to conclusions or trying to solve a problem until he or she fully understood it.
Rodgers (2002) described how, as a TE, she helped NTs to develop the skill of
description using data from their own classrooms. For instance, Rodgers helped teachers to
63

discern the difference between description, or learning to see, and interpretation, or giving
meaning to what one sees. Rodgers asked NTs to describe an object, like a stone. After NTs
described the stone, Rodgers pushed them to go back and generate more details, even if NTs
believed they had said all they could about the object. The next task was to describe a picture.
Rodgers used an ambiguous picture to pique the curiosity of NTs she worked with. NTs were
asked to write down everything they noticed. Then Rodgers asked NTs to go back and analyze
which of the observations were descriptive and which were interpretive. If a NT interpreted
something, Rodgers asked him or her to explain why and to think of other ways to interpret the
same evidence. Rodgers found that other teachers were always able provide alternative
explanations for the same evidence. By exploring the source of a NTs interpretations through this
kind of questioning, Rodgers found that NTs were able to confront their unexamined
assumptions about teaching, learning, students, and their own values (pp. 238–239).
Rodgers (2002) also helped NTs describe teaching moments, or “one-inch frames,” from
their own classrooms in as much detail as possible so that NTs slowed down and observed what
had occurred before jumping to conclusions that could be based on their own preconceived
notions or assumptions. Rodgers asked teachers to choose an interesting or exciting moment
from their classroom experience. The goal was to get NTs to describe observations of individuals
and details rather than what happened whole group. Teachers brought and shared their moments
in Rodgers’s classroom. Staying grounded in the descriptive details of each event, presenting
teachers were asked as many questions as possible about what happened. The goal was to get the
presenting teacher to see the event from a variety of different perspectives. As more teachers
presented their moments, individual NTs were better able to understand the variety of
perspectives from which each event could be observed (pp. 240–241).
64

Another way that Rodgers (2002) encouraged teachers to see beyond their own initial
observations of an event and improve their own description and differentiation skills was to
provide ongoing and structured feedback. Ongoing feedback referred to attending to information
available at every minute in a classroom, including interactions between teacher, student, subject
matter, and context. A teacher who was present and reflecting-in-action was present to ongoing
feedback. Structured feedback referred to taking a step back and asking questions about whether
learning had occurred. Rodgers presented questions to assist in structured feedback, such as
‘What do you think you’ve really learned?’ ‘How do you know?’ ‘What helped your learning?’
‘What hindered your learning?’ ‘How did you feel?’ (p. 242). Rodgers made it a point to ask
these kinds of questions to determine what learning had occurred and she sought to help NTs
distinguish between what she taught, what they learned, and what they did.
Once NTs were able to describe an event in detail, they were ready for the next phase,
analysis. In the analysis phase, NTs generated several possible, differing explanations for the
event and then settled on one theory or hypothesis they were willing to test. According to
Rodgers (2002, p. 244), this is the phase where meaning-making occurred. It was often necessary
to return to the description phase to get more data that could be analyzed.
As a professional development advisor to a small public-school, one-way Rodgers (2002)
helped stakeholders engage in analysis was by describing and interpreting a one-page document
with the school’s rules. After reading carefully through each rule and describing what each rule
said, the group decided to focus on the first rule, which was ‘“No running in the halls”’ (p. 245).
By the third 2-hour meeting, the group was still analyzing the same rule. They wondered what
was meant by “no running” and “running.” Rodgers asked the staff to go back to their
experience. The staff thought about how they themselves ran in the halls and wondered if the rule
65

only applied to students. They wondered if dancing or mimicking a basketball lay-up like some
students did constituted running. That discussion led to a discussion about the nature of a rule.
Who enforces a rule, and should it be enforced every single time? Eventually, the staff realized
that they did not care so much about whether students obeyed a rule as they did about respect for
space on campus. Values like safety and stewardship came out of this conversation. This
reflective cycle occurred over a long period of time, and Rodgers noted how powerful it was to
get to such a depth of understanding through an iterative process of description and analysis (p.
246).
The final phase of the reflective cycle, experimentation, doubled as a new experience that
one could be present for. It took a group time to get to this phase and, by this point, suggested
action reflected the hard work of being present, describing, and analyzing; hence, intelligent
action. In this phase, the group decided what to do based on suggestions given by teachers. The
TE prompted teachers to give suggestions using generative language, such as “What would
happen if you” and “Once I tried” (p. 249).
At some point, the ideas needed to be tested by teachers. Teachers who tested ideas then
brought stories back to the group, and in this way, they were encouraged to take risks and
continue the cycle of reflection.
Rodgers (2002) stated that “when teachers ‘see’ in more nuanced ways, they start to
differentiate their teaching from their students learning. Once they see this distinction, they
become more sensitive to the fact that good teaching is a response to student’s learning” (p. 250).
Rodgers suggested that within a supportive community of reflection, teachers could learn to
understand what they observed, analyze based on experience, and create intelligent action.
66

Be Present
Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006) articulated a theory for the concept of presence in
teaching by defining presence and exploring presence as self-awareness, presence as connection
to students, and presence as connection to knowledge of teaching.
Presence was defined as “a state of alert awareness, receptivity, and connectedness to the
mental, emotional, and physical workings of both the individual and the group in the context of
their learning environments, and the ability to respond with a considered and compassionate best
next step” (p. 265). For a teacher, presence meant bringing one’s whole self to full attention to
what was happening at any given moment. Presence meant paying full attention to students’
reactions through careful observation and interpretation (pp. 267–268).
A key aspect of presence was connection to self. Relationships with students depended on
a teacher’s relationship to his or herself. The notion, understanding, and awareness of self was
constantly evolving. Critical self-awareness, looking at one’s own beliefs, values, bias, etc., was
key to growth. To be present to students required a teacher to be present and highly aware of self.
The authors pointed to the risk of a divided self and the moral imperative of self.
In their work with NTs, the authors often observed a divide between a NT’s perception of
self as a teacher and as a person. There was an idea among NTs that a person’s “real self” was
not allowed in school because that was against the rules. In their minds, NTs constructed a
conception of self-based on what they thought their organization or society expected them to be.
Thus, NTs tried to be who they thought they “‘should’” be and often fell into anxiety about how
to behave (pp. 271 –272). Rather than bringing the richness and value of their authentic selves to
the classroom, NTs often acted in artificially constructed ways that made presence in the
67

classroom challenging. A NT’s ability to be present, be themselves, and trust their own actions
was compromised.
The authors offered one example of a NT who was given the advice by an outside mentor
to never sit down in the classroom. To establish her authority, she was told she needed to hover
over students constantly. Not being the type of person to hover over anyone, the teacher felt her
identity was compromised between how a mentor conceptualized her obligation to students and
how she saw her own role (pp. 272 –273). When a teacher’s conceptions of self did not align with
the context in which he or she worked, presence to the learner and his or her learning was
challenged.
In a democratic society, teachers were also responsible to possess a moral imperative of
self. A teacher’s moral imperative had to align, not only in terms of daily lessons, but in long-
term goals for students. As a teacher attended to him or herself, he or she was able to attend to
the students he or she taught.
The authors described presence in terms of the importance of connection and
disconnection to students. One aspect of connection to others was mutual empathy, or the ability
to feel seen, see others, and sense others feeling seen in authentic ways (p. 274). Individuals
needed to feel seen by others and accepted as their authentic selves. In the classroom, a teacher
had to be able to see the world through a student’s perspective such that he or she was able to
help the student make connections to the world and build their own knowledge. Trust was a key
aspect of connection between teacher and student. Just as trust in oneself was a necessary
component to be fully present, mutual trust between teacher and student was integral to
connectedness. To build trust, teachers had to attend to building a common focus and common
68

goals with students. Lastly, to be connected and present to students meant constructing mutual
meaning of knowledge.
In the same way it was important to be fully connected to students, it was equally
important to understand what to do when a student became disconnected. It was impossible to be
connected to all students all the time, so what was a teacher to do after a disconnection?
The authors described Kayla, a first-year high school Spanish teacher, who became
disconnected with her students. Students were misbehaving, some had not done their homework,
and a few were distracting the rest. Furious, Kayla recounted, “‘I felt like my classroom had
fallen out of control, the students had lost respect for me and I, in turn, was behaving like I had
lost respect for them’” (p. 276). The next day Kayla decided to reorganize tables and chairs in the
classroom to engage in a discussion with students about changes that needed to be made.
Students were surprised to be included in the conversation about changes and more surprised to
have their input heard and implemented. As time went on and both parties found better ways of
communicating and reconnecting, the culture of the classroom shifted.
Kayla’s situation was an example of reparation, or the repair of a situation where parties
did not understand each other. As teachers and students learned what it took to repair situations, a
foundation for trust was built. After situations where parties have not seen eye to eye, students
and teachers learned to develop communication strategies that helped them reconnect, as in
Kayla’s case. Strong relationships were built when teachers worked to be fully connected to
students, when teachers realized when disconnection occurred and acted to reconnect, and when
teachers allowed their real selves to be known by students.
Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006) articulated that to be present meant that a teacher had to
be present not only to self and to students, but also present to pedagogy and subject matter. To be
69

present, it was critical for a teacher to pay close attention to subject matter and students’
interaction with subject matter. A teacher had to be able to go through a process of “observation,
analysis, and intelligent response” or action. If any of the three dimensions of presence were
weak, the ability to be fully present was compromised. Reflection in action embodied the
concept of presence in teaching (p. 281).
Deep knowledge of subject matter was critical to the concept of presence. A teacher was
required not only to understand their subject matter, but to know how a novice in that subject
might gain mastery. Moreover, a teacher had to know how their subject matter connected to other
fields of study and how they might bring that knowledge into the classroom. It was important for
a teacher to have deep enough mastery of subject matter that their mind was not preoccupied
with it, which enabled them to be more fully present.
In addition to mastery of subject matter, a teacher had to understand children, learning,
and pedagogy to be fully present. It was important for a teacher to understand the ability levels of
children, how those children learned best, and what strategies could be used to help them
construct their own meaning. If a teacher did not understand how to engage learners in true
critical thought, how could they be fully present to learning? To be present to student learning,
teachers had to go through a process of “observation, diagnosis, and compassionate response” (p.
281). The teacher had to be free from thinking about other considerations to fully engage in the
actions that led to being present.
Presence required a flexible environment that was responsive to teaching. This kind of
context had to enable a teacher to diagnose the needs of individuals and the group, design
curriculum according to those needs, and implement that curriculum skillfully and creatively (p.
70

282). The context also provided the materials and resources that enabled true presence in
teaching.
Deal With Ignorance and Resistance
Garrett and Segall (2013) articulated the issues of ignorance and resistance observed in
NTs in pre-service teacher education. They suggested that TEs come to terms with the notion that
changing conditions in education was challenging, that positionality of TEs was important in
dealing with issues of ignorance and resistance, and that a TE could serve as a “container” for
manifestations of ignorance and resistance.
Ignorance, defined as “the perceived lack of knowledge of race,” and resistance to
encounters of issues of race were prominent in teacher education (p. 295). These issues were
especially prominent in instances when White NTs were faced with critical notions of race in
coursework or encounters. The authors proposed ways that TEs could explore the complexities
of instances of ignorance and resistance to issues of race, especially issues dealing with the
continued influence of race on the lived experiences of racial minorities.
The authors built on the notion of ignorance as not knowing. They explained that
ignorance meant that a person took note of something, acknowledged it, and then made the
conscious decision not to acknowledge it or to ignore it. For instance, when a child ignored the
directive of a parent, it was not that the child did not hear the parent, but that the child decided to
ignore the directive. Ignorance was a strategy to avoid. In this way, a White NT was in a
privileged position to be able to ignore or avoid information that consciously or subconsciously
troubled his or her mind. For example, if a White NT felt uncomfortable thinking about issues of
race or White privilege, he or she could consciously decide to ignore those issues.
71

Garret and Segall (2013) elaborated on the concept of resistance. Resistance was referred
to as a “critically conscious action” that was “used to describe situations in which people [would]
not do what [was] being asked of them” (p. 297). While resistance could be a positive,
emancipatory action against hegemony, resistance could also be a way to resist learning about or
discussing issues of race. Resistance of this kind was observed to take many forms in teacher
education, including “color-blind” discourse that purported race was not an issue in education
and the denial that systemic racism existed altogether. For example, when social studies NTs the
authors worked with in a university methods course were asked about the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina in New Orleans, one NT stated that the situation in New Orleans was not a “‘race or
class thing’” and that comments like Kanye West’s that “‘George W. Bush does not care about
black people’” were inappropriate because they turned the issue “‘into a race thing’” (p. 298).
This was an example of resistance in that the NT explicitly discussed the issue of race and
consciously chose to move away from it because he or she saw it as irrelevant to the incident in
New Orleans.
In light of resistance and ignorance in teacher education, Garrett and Segall (2013)
claimed three main implications for working with NTs in pre-service teacher education: (a) TEs
should acknowledge the ambiguity of race work in teacher education; (b) TEs should consider
their positionality in race work with NTs; and (c) TEs had the opportunity to act as “containers”
to guide the race work of NTs (p. 300).
First, TEs had to understand that just because White NTs learned about White privilege
and inequality did not mean that these teachers would be able to make change. Likewise, TEs
had the responsibility of explaining to White NTs that just because they were implicated in the
ills of inequality did not mean that they had to bear the burden alone.
72

Second, TEs were responsible for understanding the impact of their own positionality in
race work with NTs. Just as White NTs may have misunderstood their White privilege or how to
engage issues of race, so too were TEs, many of whom were White, responsible for working
through their own privilege and positionality in race work. How TEs went about designing
curriculum and instruction or how they responded toward issues of equity in their work with NTs
was a direct manifestation of their own notions of their role in disrupting inequity.
Lastly, to help make sense of issues of race, and to help manage reactions of ignorance
and resistance, TEs had the opportunity to act as containers for NTs. By acting as a container to
hold the frustrations that came about for White NTs in dealing with issues of race, TEs were able
to return those frustrations in appropriate, productive ways to foster learning. For instance, the
TE may have asked simple questions in the face of NT frustration, such as “What just happened
here? What was it that first made us feel more emotionally heightened? What was it that first
made us say, ‘no’? Did we really know what we said we did not know?” (p. 301). This reframing
helped to view the frustrations that often led to ignorance and resistance less as problems and
more as opportunities to understand the reasons that underlay the emotional reactions and
interrogate the role teachers should play in disrupting inequity.
Prepare and Develop Professionally
Loughran (2014) outlined important factors in the preparation of TEs. He articulated the
idea that TEs often struggled to balance teaching loads with university expectations to do
research. Beginning TEs sometimes struggled to understand how to professionally develop or
how to find an appropriate mentor in a field that lacked “leadership in the scholarship of teacher
education” (p. 273). Loughran (2014) argued that TEs must be smart consumers of research,
must research their own practice, and must attend to their own values and beliefs.
73

First, to understand the complexity of teaching NTs, TEs had to be smart consumers of
research that looked beyond their own practice and experience. If a TE was to move beyond their
own practice, they needed to be informed about the research available that could assist them in
changing their practice. Moreover, through the ways they approached the instruction of NTs, TEs
had to create opportunities for NTs to be avid consumers of research themselves.
Second, to consistently learn and improve their practice, TEs had to engage in self-study
to research their own practice. Self-study methodology had the potential to challenge and
provoke a TE to move beyond his or her own ways of doing. Researching one’s own practice
was one-way TEs learned more about how they approached practice and about methods to
improve teaching.
Lastly, TEs had to attend to their own values and beliefs, which impacted the way they
saw and responded to their teacher education experiences. To recognize their own deeply held
values and beliefs, TEs required a very different personal response than that of attending to the
values and beliefs of others. TEs could examine their own values and beliefs more deeply
through core reflection, or reflection on one’s beliefs, identity, and mission. Asking themselves
questions such as “What do I believe?” and “What greater entity do I feel connected to?” enabled
TEs to focus on more deeply held values and beliefs and less on superficial questions like “What
do I do” (p. 279).
Model Pedagogical Inquiry
McCarthy (2018) investigated his own teaching of two semesters of children’s literature
to NTs at Michigan State University using books written by non-US authors to communicate
multiple perspectives of Muslim characters. The author wanted to understand how NTs would
respond to focused confrontation with beliefs in literature.
74

The “Reading and Responding to Children’s Literature” course was required for NTs in
the undergraduate teacher education program. Three-hour weekly meetings were held, and of the
15 meetings, five were reserved for whole class book discussion. In both sections that held about
20 students each, most students were characterized as White females who were 19 or 20 years
old. Both sections of the course coincided with the 2016 presidential election, and as social
division steadily increased throughout the campaign, McCarthy (2018) felt the need to promote
critical conversations around the literature read in class.
For class discussion, the TE selected memoir, fiction, and graphic novels by Muslim and
other authors outside the United States. McCarthy (2018) never addressed his intention to avoid
framing the United States in opposition to books by non-U.S. authors. One-hour small group
discussions were followed by whole group discussions primarily directed by the TE. The TE
introduced text as new information, NTs worked to create their own understanding of text, and
NTs engaged each other to form collective understanding.
Data sources collected included journal writing by NTs throughout the semester,
discussion notes kept by NTs during book discussions, pedagogical reflections made by the TE,
and course documents. Since student journal writing represented the most direct communication
of NT’s responses to TE prompting, it was used as the primary data source. Journals were kept
on a Google Doc shared with the TE. The TE communicated to NTs that journals were only
graded for completion. McCarthy (2018) contended that the interactions he had with each of the
NTs in class reflected the voices he read in the journal responses (p. 10).
The first student journal prompt asked NTs to free-write about course themes, including
Islam/Muslims. McCarthy (2018) analyzed the following forms of knowing in student responses:
75

 school (knowing of Islam): I think back to when I first really learned about Islam. I
was in high school history class, and we had a unit on Islam. Personally, the religion
seemed fine to me; it didn’t seem like the same religion that was being belittled by the
U.S. population and government. To me, Islam seemed like any other religion, and I
remember changing my views on it because of that class.
 media (knowing of Muslims): I have not had any firsthand experience or interactions
with Muslims, so everything I think is based upon things I have seen or read. The
common perception many people have is that they are bad people, and they are all
terrorists. I know this is a negative stereotype, one that is not always true, but because
of things like 9/11, many people have this stigma of them.
 local (knowing of Muslims in Dearborn, MI): I grew up around Muslim children my
entire childhood. Once Dearborn got too heavily populated, my parents pulled me and
my brothers out of Dearborn schools and sent us to a private school in Allen Park.
 personal interactions (knowing Muslims): I have had the fortune to know many
Muslims in my life. I have had several friends who are Muslims, and they are all
decent people. Knowing many Muslims has allowed me the knowledge that Islam is
no better or worse than other religions and that Muslims are no better or worse than
any other person. (McCarthy, 2018, pp. 12–13)
McCarthy (2018) stated that the student responses represented the fact that some NTs
needed transformation, and some did not. Likewise, some NTs were comfortable discussing the
topic, and some were not. This suggested that any group of students would be unpredictable in
where they began and ended in the course. The author contended that because NTs responded
76

based on their “student identity” in the course, they were less likely to be vulnerable or open to
intrinsic change (p. 13).
In one semester of the course, the TE realized through his reflective notes that there were
several occasions where class discussion stopped, and he missed opportunities to probe students
on specific comments made in class. He neither provided a space for NTs to engage nor modeled
how a TE made sense of course readings. Instead of engaging NTs in rich discussion about the
need for change in the world, the TE allowed NTs to remain silent.
In another semester of the course, the TE provided too many materials to read. The result
of assigning over 20 supplementary articles created a situation where discussions of those
readings were often cut to prioritize other activities or assignments.
McCarthy (2018) found that his intention to transform NT beliefs was perceived by some
as misguided and unnecessary. NTs identified the TEs prompts as implying NTs held negative
views. NT criticality was likely present despite the TE’s guided reflection (p. 15).
The final body of literature helped in understanding what TEs had to be able to do to
prepare NTs to engage in ambitious teaching. Specifically, TEs had to teach NTs to reflect on
their practice (Rodgers, 2002), be present to NT learning (Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006), know
how to redirect resistance and ignorance on the part of NTs (Garrett & Segall, 2013), develop
themselves professionally (Loughran, 2014), and model social and pedagogical inquiry
(McCarthy, 2018). This set of knowledge and skills had the potential to foster ambitious teaching
in NTs in the context of pre-service teacher education.
Conceptual Framework
Maxwell (2013) defined the conceptual framework as “the system of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research” (p. 39).
77

My conceptual framework, represented by Figure 5, will enable me to answer the research
question posed in this study.

78

Figure 5
A Model of TE’s Perceptions About How They Approach Instruction in Pre-service Teacher
Education

Building from Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) conception of inquiry as stance and the
notion of an inquiry community, I assert that a TE takes an equity stance in order to create an
inquiry community among NT educators. The term equity stance, drawing from Cochran-Smith
(2016), involves interrogating one’s own practice and conceptualizing issues of equity in order to
implement equity-centered curriculum and instruction for diverse student populations.
Part of the TE’s and NTs role is to learn to take an equity stance within an inquiry
community of practitioners seeking to improve their individual and collective practice. Taking an
equity stance means asking difficult questions, such as “Are we truly creating conditions for
students to practice critical thinking and problem solving or are we perpetuating obedience and
79

oppression?” Howard (2003) offered a set of critical reflection questions that both TEs and NTs
should consider as they develop anti-racist pedagogy:
1. How frequently and what types of interactions did I have with individuals from racial
backgrounds different from my own growing up?
2. Who were the primary persons that helped to shape my perspectives of individuals
from different racial groups? How were their opinions formed?
3. Have I ever harbored prejudiced thoughts towards people from different racial
backgrounds?
4. If I do harbor prejudiced thoughts, what effects do such thoughts have on students
who come from those backgrounds?
5. Do I create negative profiles of individuals who come from different racial
backgrounds? (Howard, 2003, p. 198)
Both TEs and NTs must ask these questions of their own practice.
Building on Ghousseini et al. (2015), both TEs and NTs make professional commitments
to teaching, which include (a) treating learners as high-quality sense makers who bring a unique
set of rich experiences, (b) building relationships with learners as cultural beings, and (c)
purposefully designing instruction so that all learners participate in serious intellectual activity.
Thus, interview questions will ask participants to elaborate on their own commitments and how
those commitments impact action. Specifically, I am interested in gaining insight into whether or
not TEs adhere to professional commitments of teaching and how they view their own
responsibility in terms of building professional commitments of teaching within NTs if this is not
already revealed. I wish to understand how they promote professional commitments of teaching,
if at all.
80

The TE’s role is to identify and help NTs identify gaps between theory and practice,
specifically related to issues of equity. This can include noticing and naming when NTs
perpetuate racist pedagogy or do not uphold professional commitments to teaching. The TE
builds on the work of NTs by guiding them toward the creation of anti-racists pedagogy and
more challenging learning goals once a certain level of mastery has been reached. Both TEs and
NTs pose problems of practice, reflect critically in and on their own practice, and work to surface
assumptions about teaching and learning.
The TE plans and implements pedagogy that is anti-racist and complex, in the sense of
being highly relational and intellectual (Cochran-Smith, 2015), and that is based in clinical
practice (Forzani, 2014). One example of how this can be achieved is through Cycles of
Investigation (Lampert et al., 2013) or Rehearsals (McDonald et al., 2013) where NTs are guided
through a set of experiences that are designed to improve a NTs ability to engage in complex
practice, sometimes called core practice (Lampert et al., 2013; McDonald et al., 2013; Grossman
et al., 2013). Through teaching structures such as Cycles of Investigation and Rehearsals, TEs
teach NTs to reflect critically in and on practice (Rodgers, 2002; Howard, 2003), to think in ways
that are culturally, critically conscious (Gay & Kirkland, 2003), and to be present to student
learning (Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006).

81

Chapter Three: Methods
This chapter describes the qualitative approach, sample, population, data collection,
instrumentation, data analysis, procedures, and methods that I used to conduct this study. The
purpose of this study was to understand how pre-service TEs perceived the way they prepared
NTs to engage in high-quality teaching. I used a qualitative design to inductively explore how
pre-service TEs perceived their approaches to preparing NTs to engage in preparing NTs to teach
in a high-quality way. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), “the overall purpose [of
qualitative research] is to understand how people make sense of their lives and their experiences”
(p. 24). Therefore, a qualitative approach helped me understand how pre-service TEs made sense
of their work with NTs.
Research Design
Given that I, the researcher, was the primary instrument in the data collection and
analysis of the interview data, I used an “inductive investigative strategy” in this study. I viewed
the pre-service context within teacher education as a “bounded system,” or a case (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 24), where pre-service TEs sought to prepare NTs to engage in high quality
teaching.
Drawing on Merriam and Tisdell (2016), a case study approach allowed me to create
boundaries around what I was investigating. The case that I studied was represented graphically
by the conceptual framework or model of a pre-service TE’s perceptions about how they
approached preparation for NTs. Furthermore, a case study research design helped me collect
data to answer this study’s research question: What are pre-service TEs’ perceptions about how
they approach instruction to prepare NTs to engage in high-quality teaching?
82

Sample and Population
I began my search for participants by using purposeful sampling (Patton, 2015) to
“discover, understand, and gain insight” from a “sample from which the most can be learned”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96). To attain the most purposeful sample of research participants
who I could gain the most insight from, I researched an organization whose purpose was to
prepare NTs by using student-centered, practice-based pedagogies. Of the 34 members in the
organization, I reached out to 11 of those members via email. In my email, I explained who I was
and that I was interested in exploring TEs’ beliefs about preparing NTs. I explained that given
their background and experience as TEs in a program oriented towards preparing NTs who were
able to engage in high quality teaching, I would be extremely interested in talking to them as part
of my study. I explained that participating would entail a 60-minute interview in person or over a
video conference at a mutually agreed-upon time and date. I told them while I would love for
them to participate, I also understood if they were too busy to participate and asked them for any
recommendations, they had of someone, either in their institution or at another institution, with
whom they had a relationship who they could recommend being a good fit. Of the 11 members
that I reached out to, three did not respond, two said they could not participate and gave two
recommendations each, one could not commit to participate, and five agreed to participate in this
study. Of the five that agreed to participate, one initially asked to meet with me first to discuss
my study. I met with the pre-service TE over zoom and explained my study. After our meeting,
she also agreed to participate. For all five participants, I agreed upon a time and date via email,
and I sent them a calendar invite with a video conference link.
Through the use of snowball sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), I emailed each of the
four recommended TEs directly in the same way as before, and all four agreed to participate in
83

this study. We agreed on a time and date, and I sent them calendar invites with a video
conference link.
Additionally, and to increase my ability to gain deep insight into the phenomenon, I
identified ten pre-service TEs whom I was familiar with from the literature, who all espoused a
commitment toward high quality preparation of NTs and emailed them in the same manner. Two
expressed they could not commit to participate, and eight agreed to participate. With each of the
eight pre-service TEs, I also agreed on a time and date, and emailed them a video conference link
for the interview.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
According to Patton (2002), “we interview people to find out from them those things we
cannot directly observe” (p. 340). Since my aim was to discover pre-service TEs’ perceptions
about how they approached instruction to prepare NTs for high quality teaching, I gathered
interview data directly from interviews with each of the 16 pre-service TEs (Patton, 2002). I
chose interviewing as a primary data source to understand how pre-service TEs made sense of
how they approached preparing NTs to engage in high quality teaching for K–12 students. I
interviewed 16 participants to gather a rich set of data to analyze and interpret.
Patton (2002) wrote, “Interviews that are more systematized and standardized facilitate
analysis” (p. 346). For the interview protocol, I used a combined approach (Patton, 2002, p. 347)
or semi-structured, open-ended interview that listed detailed questions to ask each participant
and targeted concepts within the conceptual framework, such as the role of the pre-service TE,
the role of the NT, pedagogy, and content. According to Patton (2002), the benefit to using a
combined approach, such as a semi-structured, open-ended interview protocol, is that “this
84

combined strategy offers the interviewer flexibility in probing and in determining when it is
appropriate to explore certain subjects in greater depth” (p. 347).
To create the semi-structured, open-ended interview protocol, I started out by analyzing
the conceptual framework for concepts to ask about, such as concepts relating to the role of the
pre-service TE, the role of the NT (i.e., adhering to professional commitments of teaching),
pedagogy (i.e., complex, clinical practice), and content (i.e., critical reflection). I wanted to
discover how pre-service TEs approached building knowledge and skills in NTs. I created
questions by using two main question formats: experience and behavior questions and opinion
and values questions (Patton, 2002, pp. 348–350). I focused on these question types because I
believed they would elicit responses most useful in answering this study’s research question
relating to perceptions. I also ensured that each question was worded in a truly open-ended
manner by using sentence starters, such as “What do you believe?” (Patton, 2002, p. 350).
Each interview lasted no less than 50 minutes and no more than 65 minutes. The semi-
structured, open-ended interview protocol helped ensure all major questions and topics were
covered within that timeframe (Patton, 2002).
Data Analysis Procedures
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated, “the much-preferred way to analyze data in a
qualitative study is to do it simultaneously with data collection” (p. 101). As I interviewed pre-
service TEs in this study, I wrote notes about what I heard each pre-service TE tell me, and I
thought about places where I wanted to probe further. For instance, when I asked one per-service
TE, “What do you believe your role is, if at all, in disrupting inequitable mindsets or practices as
they present themselves in working with your students?” I wrote down what I heard in the
moment, which was “It’s my job to disrupt inequitable practices; being proactive is important, I
85

rarely let it slide, I might come back to it because tensions are high, I try hard to not let issues
that emerge.” I then asked, “Can you think of a specific example of when this happened in
practice?” I then wrote down what I heard the pre-service TE say, which was “male student,
person of color, instances in class where things were said that were veiled stingers at him in a
way that I felt were completely inappropriate.” By writing notes and probing in this way, I was
able to gain a deeper understanding of the perceptions TEs had about how they approached their
work with NTs.
I wrote analytic memos after every interview to capture my thoughts about what each
research participant was saying and how that helped to answer my research question (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2003). For example, for this same interview, I wrote as part of my analytic memo, “In
preparing NTs for high quality teaching, Dr. Jones seeks to promote equitable practices, such as
getting NTs to recognize inequity” This helped me concentrate my thoughts on what the pre-
service TE was saying, and how that might help to answer my research question. I engaged in
conversations with my dissertation chair about these analytic memos, and she served as a peer
who held me accountable to what the data was saying, and not what I wanted it to say.
Data analysis is a process of generating and verifying concepts through the acquisition of
data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). To truly listen to what participants were saying in the data and
avoid taking anything for granted, I used analytic tools, which could be defined as “thinking
techniques used by analysts to facilitate the coding process” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 65).
One example of an analytic tool I used was comparing participants’ responses to allow me to
think more analytically about the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). As I interviewed more research
participants, I compared what research participants said across interviews. For instance, after
interviewing four pre-service TEs, I wrote, “Dr. Jones and Dr. Clark, both white females in
86

30s/40s/50s, think that learning how to teach the content is the main issue.” I then wrote, “Dr.
Reilly thinks that, given the amount of time she has with NTs, learning to teach the content is
most important.” Then I wrote, “Dr. Young thinks that knowing the children is most important
and is what drives the work of teaching.” These comparisons helped me understand what I was
learning about the perceptions of pre-service TEs had about preparing NTs for high quality
teaching.
While in the field, and after I transcribed interview data, wrote analytic memos, and
compared analytic memos across interviews, I engaged in open coding, or coding that was open
to finding anything that was trending in the data, where I both looked for empirical codes,
recording words or phrases that emerged from the data as well as created a priori, or a
provisional list of, codes (Saldaña, 2009) aligned to my conceptual framework to enable analysis
that directly answered the research question (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For example, one code
that emerged from the data was “Program Level” and within this code was the phrase “TE in
control of courses taught; little knowledge of other courses.” One a priori code that was aligned
to my conceptual framework was “promote equitable practices,” which had other codes listed
under that umbrella such as “taking responsibility for student learning.”
Once I open coded the interview data, which Merriam and Tisdell (2016) called “the
trees,” I thought about “the forest” and moved to axial, or analytic coding. In other words, I took
a step back from the analysis to look at the larger trends within the data, code patterns, and
discover themes. For instance, one open code that emerged from the interview data, “constrained
by time” led to the discovery of a trend across several interviews, “given time, pedagogy/content
is most important.”
87

Credibility and Trustworthiness
It was impossible to eliminate the main research instrument, the researcher, and all the
beliefs and preconceptions that person brought to the table. That said, there were certain methods
and procedures I implemented to help rule out validity threats and strengthen credibility and
trustworthiness (Maxwell, 2013).
The first thing I did was collect rich data, which in an interview meant, “verbatim
transcripts of the interviews, not just notes on what [I] felt was significant” (Maxwell, 2013) and
a participant’s in-depth narrative that showed how the phenomenon under study unfolded
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I used an online service to transcribe the interview data so that I
could analyze what each pre-service TE expressed verbatim.
The next thing I did was triangulate the data or collect “information from a diverse range
of individuals and settings, using a variety of methods” (Maxwell, 2013). I created a chart to
compare data across pre-service TEs. In this correlation chart, I included the TE, their origin
story (i.e. scholar or practitioner or both; education), what drove their approach to preparing NTs
(i.e. pedagogy, student identity, or both), their role in disrupting inequity (i.e. colorblind or
names race), the level they assumed within their teacher education program (i.e. classroom vs.
program), and the themes that emerged from the data (i.e. constraints of time, conditions facing
the TE program, and role within the program).
Lastly, I reflected on my own biases and what I might have been projecting onto the data
as I analyzed. I constantly asked myself questions like “Is this what the data is telling me or am I
thinking this based on what I already know?” I paid close attention to what the data was and was
not saying. I interrogated my own biases as a Latino educator who grew up in a low-income
community, who had been a teacher and administrator in urban schools for over 15 years, and
88

who had a strong opinion about what high quality instruction looked, sounded, and felt like,
especially for low-income students of color. I knew I needed to reflect on how participant
responses compared to the relevant educational research on high quality preparation for NTs, and
not on my own opinions, based on my own experiences.
Ethics
To help ensure that this study was conducted in an ethical manner, I applied to IRB to
ensure that I had approval to interview human subjects. I needed to be sure that I did not make
anyone feel as though they were coerced into participating in this study. To do that, I explained to
each participant that they were agreeing to participate in a study that was completely voluntary,
and that the participant did not need to answer any question they did not wish to answer. I asked
each participant for their permission to record each interview and I transcribed each interview
using an online service.
I employed three strategies reflected in the research literature: right to privacy,
reciprocity, and cultural considerations (Glesne, 2011). As Glesne (2011) stated, “In discussions
of the rights of research participants, privacy is generally the foremost concern” (p. 172). I
informed each participant that I would respect confidentiality by using fake names and by
avoiding personally identifiable information. Next, I exercised reciprocity by offering them a gift
card in exchange for their participation. Finally, I used all my knowledge of our shared code of
ethics within the scholarly community to act in ways considered “culturally hospitable” (Glesne,
2011).
Limitations and Delimitations
There were limitations, or external factors inherent in the data collection methods of this
study that the researcher could not control (Bloomberg & V olpe, 2012). On the other hand,
89

delimitations were the conditions that the researcher could intentionally impose and control
(Bloomberg & V olpe, 2012). Informed by my conceptual framework as well as the data
collection and analysis methods, I described several limitations and delimitations for my study
that I was aware of.
Limitations
One limitation to this study was that I was not able to get all the participants through
purposeful sampling for equity-centered TEs who adopted a core practices approach to working
with their NTs. Instead, I had to rely on the recommendations (snowball sampling) given by
potential participants. This sampling approach led me to expand the pool of participants to
individuals who did not ground themselves in core practices, even though they did espouse an
equity-centered perspective. This expansion of the participants may account for a lack of data
regarding the enactment of TE practices to develop NTs. that I was originally seeking.
A second limitation of this study was that I was not able to control how much
information, or the breadth or depth of information that each participant chose to express in each
interview. Some participants gave shorter, more general responses, while others gave longer,
more specific responses to the questions I asked.
A final limitation of the study is that I was a novice researcher, never having constructed
an interview protocol, collected, or analyzed qualitative data.
Delimitations
A delimitation was the amount of time I had to collect data. I knew that as a full-time
working professional, a high school principal, and graduate doctoral candidate, my time was
constrained.
90

A second delimitation of this study was the way I constructed the semi-structured, open-
ended interview protocol. The protocol was designed to enable me to align my questions to my
conceptual framework and to be used with TEs who were focused on providing NTs with core
practices and the instrument may not have been as well suited to use with TEs who did not adopt
a core practices orientation. At the same time, I did not ask “standard probes” (Patton, 2002) to
all the research participants. This was due in part to a variety or combination of factors, including
the 60-minute time limit I set and tried to honor given what I felt was common courtesy (even
though some interviews were up to ten minutes shorter or up to five minutes longer), the length
of participants’ responses that either lent to a follow-up question or not in my view, or my
inexperience as doctoral researcher. As a novice researcher, I may have also missed markers
provided by participants that would have served as signals to ask a follow-up or probing
question. These factors may have caused me to miss information that could have emerged under
different conditions.
I understood I was a novice researcher who had little experience conducting interviews,
asking probing questions, and identifying markers. Those were skills I needed to develop. I
believe it limited what I was able to learn. For instance, I could have asked more direct probing
questions, such as “How do you overcome the constraints you face in preparing NTs for high
quality instruction of K–12 students?”
Conclusion
This study sought to understand the perceptions of pre-service TEs in the pre-service
context. The units of study were pre-service TEs who prepared K–12 NTs with a focus on
positively impacting students through high quality teaching. I collected data through a series of
16 interviews with pre-service TEs to better understand their perceptions about how they
91

approached their work with NTs. The interviews were approximately 60 minutes long and
employed the use of a semi-structured, open-ended interview protocol to maximize time and ask
questions directly related to my conceptual framework. Collecting data across 16 participants
allowed me to get a fuller understanding of how pre-service TEs approached the preparation NTs
for high-quality teaching of K–12 students.

92

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate pre-service TEs’ beliefs about the way
they approached preparing NTs for high-quality K–12 instruction. The research question was:
What are pre-service TEs’ perceptions about how they approach instruction to prepare NTs to
engage in high-quality teaching for K–12 students?
Chapter Two of this dissertation was grounded in the literature that discussed what
needed to be taught in teacher education, how it was taught, the need for reflection, and what
pre-service TEs’ role was. Although participants did provide some insight into their beliefs about
what should be taught, how they should teach their NTs, and what their own roles were, what
took centerstage in the interview data were the constraints that these pre-service teachers
educators grappled with in how they approached preparing NTs for high-quality teaching of K–
12 students.
I found that pre-service TEs spoke more to what they could not control rather than what
they could control in preparing NTs. This was in line with Mehta’s (2013) assertion that
“significant, large-scale improvement” required engaging “various actors,” including teacher
education programs and school districts, to “work together in aligned ways” (p. 467). That is,
there were factors outside of what pre-service TEs could control, factors relating to the entire
American education sector (i.e. the lack of professionalization of teaching, the requirements of
traditional licensing, the lack of a knowledge base for teaching, and the lack of partnerships
between teacher education programs and districts, Mehta, 2013), that made it challenging to
adequately prepare NTs for high-quality teaching of K–12 students. The findings of this study
support Mehta’s (2013) assertion.
93

Two findings emerged from the interview data to help explain the role pre-service TEs
believed they played in preparing NTs for high-quality K–12 instruction. Finding one revealed
that pre-service TEs were constrained in their ability to prepare NTs for high-quality K–12
instruction. The first theme related to the constraint and limitation of time. The second theme
referred to the conditions facing teacher education. The third theme was about how the
impediments identified correlated with the level the pre-service TE was at within the teacher
education program.
The second finding revealed that pre-service TEs took distinct approaches to preparing
NTs for K–12 instruction. The first theme focuses on pre-service TEs who believed that teaching
pedagogy was the primary role of TEs. The second theme concentrates on TEs who believed that
focusing on student identity was most important. The third theme focused on the subset of TEs
who believed both pedagogy and student identity were important to focus on.
The remainder of this chapter presents an overview of the participants, the two findings,
and their corresponding themes.
Participants
Table 3 provides an overview of the relevant information of the pre-service TEs who
participated in this study, which was organized in alphabetical order.
1
Most of the information
was obtained in their response to the questions asked during the semi-structured, open-ended
interviews. The remaining information was obtained on the websites of their respective
universities. None of the responses were independently verified.

1
Pseudonyms were used to protect the privacy of research participants.
94

Table 3
Summary of Pre-Service Teacher Educators’ Basic Information
Pre-service TEs Gender Level of role
in the TE
program
Race/
ethnicity
Institution
type
Location
Dr. Jones F Various White Public West coast
Dr. Young F Classroom Asian Public West coast
Dr. Reilly F Classroom White Public West coast
Dr. Clark F Classroom White Public West coast
Dr. Barker M Classroom White Public Midwest
Dr. Braham M Classroom White Public West coast
Dr. Richards F Program White Public West coast
Dr. Goldman M Various White Public Midwest
Dr. Fox F Classroom Asian Public West coast
Dr. Gary F Classroom White Public Midwest
Dr. Fitzgerald F Classroom White Public East coast
Dr. Graham F Various White Public East coast
Dr. Jackson F Classroom White Public Midwest
Dr. Tucker M Classroom White Public East coast
Dr. Henderson F Classroom White Public Midwest
Dr. Hammond M Classroom White Private Midwest

95

Finding 1: Teacher Educators Constrained in Ability to Prepare NTs
In this study, all 16 pre-service TEs (TEs) saw their goal as helping to prepare NTs (NTs)
to effectively teach K–12 students. Kazemi et al. (2009) referred to this as “preparing NTs for
ambitious practice.” While all TEs saw their goal to prepare NTs to successfully teach K–12
students, all of them spoke to constraints that limited their ability to accomplish their goals. From
the data, the following themes emerged:
 Theme 1: time as a constraint
 Theme 2: the conditions facing the teacher education program as a constraint
 Theme 3: teacher educator’s role within the program as a constraint
Theme 1: Time as a Constraint at the TE/Course Level
Consistent with The Holmes Group Report’s (1986) argument that “learning higher order
analytical abilities and obtaining more than superficial knowledge … takes time,” 15 of the 16
TEs expressed that time was a constraint in preparing NTs to effectively teach K–12 students.
For example, Dr. Graham expressed that she had such limited time with NTs and that dictated
what she believed she could accomplish. She stated,
One of the hard parts, I think, about being a pre-service TE is you have such limited time
with them [NTs] and you have to make a set of decisions about what your role actually
can be. Because if you try to do everything and if you try to be everything in the limited
amount of time that you have, you’re not going to do any of it well. So, with this
particular cohort of teachers and because I was only with them for one semester in one
course, I decided to take a very small role in their development, because I wanted to do
what I was doing really well. And I wanted to be able to have some confidence that I
could succeed at that goal. So, with this particular cohort, I saw my role as I tried to select
96

a few things that I thought I could do really well and try to do everything I could around
those things. So, one of the things I tried to do was just support them to understand that
their job was to get students talking and making sense and the cognitive load being on
students in the context of text-based discussions, because they were all secondary ELA
teachers, and I was their English methods instructor.
When Dr. Graham said that “you have such limited time with them and you have to make
a set of decisions about what your role can actually be,” she communicated that time was an
important factor that narrowed her focus to something she believed she could realistically
accomplish with the specific group of NTs with whom she was working. By stating that “if you
try to do everything (emphasis added) and if you try to be everything (emphasis added) in the
limited amount of time that you have, you’re not going to do any of it well,” Dr. Graham was
implying in her use of the word “everything” in relation to what she thought she could
accomplish was that there was much more that NTs needed to know and be able to do than the
amount of time afforded to her to work with them. Dr. Graham stated that “with this particular
cohort of teachers” she only had them for “one semester in one course” and she “decided to take
a very small role in their development, because [she] wanted to do what [she] was doing really
well. And [she] wanted to be able to have some confidence that [she] could succeed at that goal.”
That is, given that she only had that particular cohort for one semester and one course, and that
this was a short amount of time, she believed she had to focus on one particular goal to be
confident that she could be successful in reaching it. Dr. Graham went on to say that
one of the things I tried to do was just support them to understand that their job was to get
students talking and making sense and the cognitive load being on students in the context
97

of text-based discussions, because they were all secondary ELA teachers, and I was their
English methods instructor.
Again, given time, Dr. Graham decided that one thing she could do, amidst the many
things that could be done, was to get NTs to understand that getting students to talk and make
sense of content by using text-based discussions was their job as secondary ELA teachers.
Inherent in what she communicated was the belief that she could not accomplish more with that
cohort of teachers given the amount of time she had with them, which again is consistent with
the idea that professional preparation takes time (Case et al., 1986).
Dr. Reilly expressed that time dictated her focus in NT development in a different way.
She stated,
I feel like you can only do so much, you know, like giving them [NTs] every day, like a
new list of things, of like, here’s what we’re working on. And I have found that it is more
useful to be able to come in and say to them, and particularly, you know, on a day-to-day
basis, those practices of high-quality teaching, but then constantly trying to sort of work
to link them to the other things … I feel like that’s just really only a matter of choice and
time, you know, like you can only work on so much. I mean, because then, Heaven helps
us, we’ve also got, you know, the math practices from the Common Core standards and
that’s like another list of like things to do. Do you know what I mean? Like to a certain
degree you can only have so much stuff in front of them [NTs] as like, here’s what you’re
trying to get better at. And I’ve tended to focus on, on the one rather than the other.
By stating “I feel like you can only do so much,” Dr. Reilly was emphasizing a frustration
she felt over the idea that NTs could only take in so much information, and therefore, she
believed she needed to decide what she was going to privilege in teaching them. When she
98

stated, “giving them every day … a new list of things,” Dr. Reilly meant that it was just not
helpful to give NTs new things to work on each day, and instead, given time, she had to
begrudgingly decide what to focus on because you can only do a limited number of things to
develop novices if you want to be effective. Dr. Reilly stated that she found it “more useful” to
work on “practices of high-quality teaching,” which meant that she privileged learning about
high-quality teaching more than learning about the multitude of other things that NTs need to
know and do. However, Dr. Reilly did not stop there. She continued by saying “but then
constantly trying to sort of work to link them to the other things,” meaning she was using the
practices of high-quality teaching as a vehicle to learn about other things. Even though she
recognized that there was so much for novices to learn and do, which made her focus on high-
quality teaching, she still tried to link to other learning. Dr. Reilly stated, “Heaven help us, we’ve
also got, you know, the math practices from the Common Core standards and that’s like another
list of things to do.” Pointing to the unending list of things that NTs needed to know and do to be
effective, such as the “Common Core math standards,” Dr. Reilly believed that divine
intervention, or something bigger than what she could conceivably accomplish on her own, was
needed to put her in a position to accomplish all the demands that had been imposed. In the face
of those demands, she made a conscious decision to titrate and give NTs tangible data to try to
simplify the complexity of the task at hand. She said, “to a certain degree you can only have so
much stuff in front of them … and I’ve tended to focus on, on one rather than the other.”
Bounded by time, Dr. Reilly tended to focus more on one thing, practices of high-quality
teaching, rather than on other things, which is consistent with the idea that given the limited time
in pre-service teacher education, TEs should focus on high-leverage practices (Ball & Forzani,
2009).
99

Dr. Barker communicated that time constrained his approach to NT development in yet
another way. He stated,
We’ll also talk about equity in terms of access to resources, and in terms of things like, I
mean, they do, there’s a whole set of courses they do with our special education folks. So,
what does equity look like in terms of ability and ableism and those kinds of things. I
don’t spend as much time on any of that in my courses, but they certainly are getting that.
And those are things that will be raised a lot of times through field experiences. They’ll
have students who have particular IEPs and they’re like, “I don’t know what to do for the
student.” So we’ll talk about that a little more explicitly in the methods course, but it’s
not built into the design of my curriculum because I know that they’re getting a lot of that
through the courses they’re taking through a special education department. So there’s
overlap, but it’s not something I spend a lot of time directly on.
When Dr. Barker said, “there’s a whole set of courses they do with our special education
folks,” he was pointing to the fact that there was learning around “equity in terms of access to
resources” that NTs learned in other classes that were not his own. He went on to state that the
learning around “what does equity look like in terms of ability and ableism and those kinds of
things” happened in the courses with the “special education folks.” He said, “I don’t spend as
much time on any of that in my courses, but they certainly are getting that.” By this, Dr. Barker
meant that he chose not to focus on “any of that” learning around “equity in terms of access to
resources” in his courses because he understood that NTs would learn that in other classes. Dr.
Barker said,
They’ll [NTs] have students who have particular IEPs and they’re like, “I don’t know
what to do for the student.” So we’ll talk about that a little more explicitly in the methods
100

course, but it’s not built into the design of my curriculum because I know that they’re
getting a lot of that through the courses they’re taking through a special education
department.
In his course, Dr. Barker supported NTs with “what to do for” students “who have
particular IEPs” when they did not “know what to do for the student,” but he acknowledged that
he did not build that into the design of his course because he understood that NTs would get “a
lot of that through the … special education department” in the teacher education program. He
said, “So there’s overlap, but it’s not something I spend a lot of time directly on.” Dr. Barker
dealt with the “overlap” in learning when needed, but it wasn’t something he spent “a lot of time
directly on.” Consistent with the idea that professional preparation takes time (Case et al., 1986)
and because he knew that NTs were supposed to get certain understandings in other parts of the
teacher education program, Dr. Barker had to decide what to spend time on.
Theme 2: The Conditions Facing the Teacher Education Program as a Constraint
Eleven of the 16 TEs expressed that the conditions facing the teacher education program
were a constraint in preparing NTs to effectively teach K–12 students. The other five of the 16
TEs did not indicate that the conditions facing the teacher education program were a constraint.
TEs articulated that the following acted as constraints to their ability to accomplish their goals:
 Ten of the 11 TEs indicated that the quality of the participants entering the teacher
education program acted as an impediment.
 One of the 11 TEs communicated that the relationship to the larger school structure
was a constraint.
 One of the 11 TEs communicated that the length of the teacher education program
was a curtailment; in addition to having communicated the length of the program as a
101

constraint, this TE also indicated that the quality of the participants was a constraint,
and was therefore included as part of the 10 participants in the first bullet point.
Sub-theme 1: The Quality of the Participants Entering the Program Was an Impediment
Of the 11 TEs who indicated that the conditions facing the teacher education program
were a constraint, 9 TEs communicated that the quality of the candidates entering the program
was an impediment. The TEs expressed a range of reasons why the quality of the candidates
entering the teacher education program were challenging, including: not recognizing the
knowledge and skills of diverse learners, which is in line with Howard’s (2003) argument that it
is imperative that teachers see student’s “cultural capital as assets” (p. 198); talking the talk, but
not walking the walk, which is consistent with Gay and Kirkland’s (2003) idea that
demonstrating “instructional behaviors” is more effective than just talking about them (p. 185);
resisting through silence and claims of ignorance (Garrett & Segall, 2013); believing that content
should be taught the way they learned in school; having belief systems that are not clear; and
lacking awareness of diversity, which Gay and Kirkland (2003) described as fostering “a more
profound awareness” of diversity (p. 182).
Dr. Richards communicated an example of this constraint. Dr. Richards expressed that it
was constraining to teach in a teacher education program comprised of mostly White women
because those students entered the teacher education program not prepared to disrupt the status
quo and were not aware of the knowledge and skills that diverse students possessed (Gay &
Kirkland, 2003; Howard, 2003). She stated,
I’ve only worked in teacher education programs that aim to prepare equity and justice-
oriented teachers. And so, teachers who would ideally, you know, enter schools with a
goal of disrupting the status quo, of advocating for students and operating as agents of
102

change and not just accepting kind of at face value the way schooling has always been
done. And because over 80% of teachers in the United States are White middle-class
women, many of them are really, ill-equipped to our, I shouldn’t say ill-equipped, but
they, they haven’t had the life experiences that would help them to recognize the assets
that their students are likely to have, right. That they would oftentimes go unnoticed,
particularly in the ways that schools are set up to, you know, marginalize the knowledges
and practices of certain communities and to perpetuate inequality … I really do look out
at a sea of White women in most of my classes. And they’re different.
Dr. Richards stated that she had only worked in programs that “aim to prepare equity and
justice-oriented teachers,” so she expected that, “ideally,” teachers “enter schools with a goal of
disrupting the status quo, of advocating for students and operating as agents of change and not
just accepting kind of at face value the way schooling has always been done.” That is, teachers
who entered a program with the aim of preparing “equity and justice-oriented teachers” should
have already come in seeking to disrupt the “status quo” and avoid simply accepting school the
way it had been done in the past. Implied in her statement was the idea that if NTs were not
entering the program ready to disrupt the “status quo,” then she had to work toward getting them
ready to disrupt it. The overwhelming majority of NTs were members of the dominant group;
therefore, she had to work toward convincing them that they should be invested in disrupting the
status quo, which is consistent with Garrett and Segall’s (2013) notion that White NTs resist
issues of race and power that might disrupt the balance of power.
Dr. Richards pointed out that most teachers in America were White, middle-class women
and they had not “had the life experiences that would help them to recognize the assets that their
students are likely to have,” which is in line with Howard’s (2003) argument that it is imperative
103

to recognize the connection between culture and learning and to be aware of student’s assets.
Here Dr. Richards was alluding to the fact that most White women did not generally grow up in
diverse neighborhoods and had not had exposure to diverse populations, including exposure to
students of Black, Latino, and other backgrounds. Dr. Richards said, “they [the assets students
were likely to have] would oftentimes go unnoticed, particularly in the ways that schools are set
up to, you know, marginalize the knowledges and practices of certain communities and to
perpetuate inequality.” Dr. Richards articulated that the way schools were set up, the “status
quo,” in terms of the knowledge and skills that were seen as valuable, or the dominant White
culture, and the ones that were not, made it so that the knowledge and skills that students of color
brought with them could easily go unnoticed. Implied in what she stated is the notion that NTs
needed to be educated on who the students really were—that they were highly intelligent human
beings who brought immense knowledge, skill, and cultural capital with them. This meant Dr.
Richards had to work harder to get NTs from the dominant group who lacked experiences with
Black and brown children to see the assets students brought with them. Therefore, similar to the
way Garrett and Segall (2013) expressed the difficulty of teaching White NTs, Dr. Richards
believed that working in a program with mainly White women who were “different” was
challenging.
Dr. Clark provided another example of the impediment of the quality of the participants
entering the teacher education program. She expressed that her program tended to be
overwhelmingly White female, similar to the way Howard (2003) described the majority of the
teaching force as White female, and she found that NTs in her program talked about being social
justice educators but did not necessarily behave like those kinds of educators. Of her teacher
education program, she stated,
104

It still tends to be, you know, 80% or so White female. … The way our program recruits
students, it’s very open about how we are kind of social justice educators training for
diversity. And so I feel like a lot of my students, I don’t know, I guess to use a phrase, talk
the talk, but I don’t know how well they walk the walk, so to speak.
Dr. Clark indicated that participants in her program were “80% or so White female” or
from the dominant culture. She believed that NTs in her program “talk the talk” or said they were
for equity and social justice, but she believed many of her students didn’t actually “walk the
walk,” meaning they did not in fact take the actions to show they had a social justice orientation.
Implied in her statement is the idea that because NTs did not act like social justice educators, she
had to work harder to get them to take the actions representative of educators who had a justice-
oriented mindset to disrupt the status quo. That is, she was constrained by program participants
who said they were equity-centered, but who did not act like it.
Sub-theme 2: The Relationship of the Program to the Larger School Structure Was a
Constraint
Dr. Jones expressed that the relationship of the teacher education program to the larger
school structure constrained TEs ability to successfully prepare NTs for full-time teaching in K–
12 education. For example, Dr. Jones communicated that the existing setup where NTs,
immediately upon leaving a teacher education program, had to take on the myriad of
responsibilities involved in teaching at a K–12 school was challenging. It forced her to do
everything in her power to adequately prepare NTs for all that they would need to take on.
Additionally, she needed to prepare NTs for the complex nature of teaching, which Cochran-
Smith (2015) described as “inherently intellectual and relational” (p. 4). In the absence of a
transitional model of teacher education, she had to find other ways to support NTs. She stated,
105

So we know teaching is overwhelming, right? We’ve been first year teachers. We know
what that’s like to try and do that. … And so, we have to find ways to help support the
transition into teaching. And because we’ll never get to what I want, which is more of a
more of a transitional model where you don’t take over teaching all the time when you
first start, right? Or where you co-teach with somebody for a year or whatever. Like those
things seem a far distance in our future. I’ve got to find other ways to support them, to
manage the complexity of teaching.
In this statement, Dr. Jones saw a limitation in the dynamic between the teacher education
program and the transition to a school. She thought that being a first-year teacher was complex
and challenging, and she wanted a “transitional model” into teaching where a teacher did not
have to full-time teach right away. In the model, perhaps the teacher could co-teach with
someone for a year before they took on all the responsibilities. To Dr. Jones, that kind of model
seemed far away. Therefore, she was constrained by the fact that there was not a dynamic
between the teacher education program and the school that could serve a larger role in supporting
the teacher to transition into teaching more gradually. Given this limitation, she believed she had
to find other ways to support NTs to be ready to take on the complex nature of teaching and all
the responsibilities involved. When Dr. Jones said “teaching is overwhelming, right? We’ve been
first year teachers. We know what that’s like to try and do that,” she meant that teaching, in
general, was very difficult. To be a first-year teacher was even more challenging because there
was so much to know and do—it was overwhelming.
In addition to believing that she had to prepare NTs for the plethora of responsibilities of
a K–12 teacher, she also had to prepare NTs for the complexity of teaching. Dr. Jones
said, “I’ve got to find other ways to support them, to manage the complexity of teaching.”
106

Dr. Jones found it an impediment, in the absence of a transitional model of teaching, to
also have to prepare teachers for the complexity involved in teaching, which Cochran-Smith
(2015) contends requires creating knowledge and tools to solve problems.
Sub-theme 3: The Length of the Teacher Education Program Was a Curtailment
Dr. Fitzgerald indicated that the length of the teacher education program was a constraint.
She believed that while certain dispositions or incoming experiences might enable a NT to be
successful, it was constraining to have a teacher education program that prepared teachers in
only one year because teaching was so difficult, and as Case et al. (1986) stated, professional
preparation takes time. Dr. Fitzgerald stated,
There are certainly certain, you know, skills, capacity, incoming experiences, dispositions
that make some of this more possible than others. … I mean, I honestly think it [a teacher
education program] shouldn’t be done in a year, so it’s, it’s really an impossible task and
we set, we set people up for, for really, you know, for a really discouraging experience, I
think, no matter how well we do, you know, the stories, the trench warfare kind of
analogies to first-year teaching are just outrageous. It’s outrageous that that’s our culture
like that. That’s sort of like, well, you know, you just, you die, you know, you just have a
really hard time. It’s like why? Absolutely absurd.
Dr. Fitzgerald stated, “There are certainly certain, you know, skills, capacity, incoming
experiences, dispositions that make some of this more possible than others.” Essentially, teacher
education was more likely to prepare a teacher to be successful if they had certain attributes or
certain “incoming experiences.” However, by and large, teacher education programs that were
only one year long constrained TE’s ability to prepare NTs to successfully teach K–12 students.
107

Dr. Fitzgerald believed it was an “impossible task” to set teachers up for success within a
teacher education program in one single year because “no matter how well” TEs did, first-year
teaching was “outrageous” and “you just die,” meaning “you just have a really hard time.” When
she alluded to the “trench warfare kind of analogies of first-year teaching,” Dr. Fitzgerald was
talking about stories that first-year teachers and others talked about how challenging and
complex the nature of teaching was, and how difficult it was to navigate that as a NT who had
only had one year of teacher education. Dr. Fitzgerald believed it was incredibly challenging to
fully prepare a teacher to be successful as a first-year teacher. Teacher education programs that
were only one year long set NTs up to fail, which is consistent with Case et al.’s (1986) argument
that “pedagogical preparation” should be “analytically driven” over time (p. 42).
Theme 3: The Constraint Identified Depends on the Level Within the Program
Twelve of the 16 TEs identified constraints that were based on the role they played or
level they held within the teacher education program. That is, the closer a TE was or had been to
other roles within the program, especially higher-level roles, such as faculty advisor or program
director, the more they saw constraints to preparing NTs as programmatic. The closer the TE’s
role was to the classroom or to directly supporting NTs, such as teaching one course or acting as
a teaching assistant, the more the TE focused on classroom-specific constraints, such as the
quality of the participants. The other 4 of the 16 TEs did not indicate constraints based on the
role they played in the program. TEs communicated that the following acted as constraints in
accomplishing their intended outcomes:
 Three of the 16 TEs indicated constraints related to program-level considerations.
 Nine of the 16 TEs articulated constraints related to classroom-level issues.
108

Sub-theme 1: Constraints at the Level of the Program
Three of the 16 TEs identified program-level constraints to preparing NTs to successfully
teach K–12 students. For instance, TEs expressed that the following were constraining: thinking
about how to create a program that builds deeper learning and complexity for NTs over time,
supporting NTs to think about how ideas of social justice connect across courses, balancing their
program-level work with classroom-specific work, and deciding that preparation for NTs in one
course must be defined a certain way.
As a teacher education program director, Dr. Richards stated that her challenge was to
create a program that built deeper learning and complexity over time, which is consistent with
the idea that teaching should not be technical or complicated, but should be kept complex
(Cochran-Smith, 2015). Dr. Richards was constrained in her ability to develop deeper
understandings for NTs because she had to think about how to develop NT learning over time
across 20 classes. She stated,
I mean, now I wear like two hats where I work as a TE in a … teacher ed program, but I
also am the director of a program, of a new program. And so, I’ve been working over the
last several years to build a new … program. And so, I think my role has become much
more programmatic in terms of thinking about teacher learning across courses, as
opposed to just in my individual classes. And that’s really just gotten me. I’ve always
been very interested in teachers’ learning processes and how we support teachers to learn.
I’ve been just thinking about how we organize that across a program, and how we can
have a program that really builds over time and where we’re supporting our candidates to
make deeper connections and develop deeper understandings with more complexity kind
109

of over time. And that has been really hard, and also really exciting work, I think, to kind
of go from looking at learning inside of one class to looking across around 20 classes.
In this statement, Dr. Richards articulated how challenging it was to go from being a “TE
in a teacher ed program” teaching one or more classes to then becoming “the director of a
program” where she was responsible for the learning of NTs across classes. As she said, her “role
has become much more programmatic in terms of thinking about teacher learning across courses,
as opposed to just in my individual classes.” She could no longer think only about how learning
happened in her course(s). She now had to think in a much more “programmatic” way about how
NTs would learn to be successful first-year teachers “across courses.” Dr. Richards stated, “I’ve
always been very interested in teachers’ learning processes and how we support teachers to
learn.” That is, she had always been interested in how NTs learned, and how TEs could support
NTs to learn. She said,
I’ve been just thinking about how we organize that [NT learning] across a program, and
how we can have a program that really builds over time and where we’re supporting our
candidates to make deeper connections and develop deeper understandings with more
complexity kind of over time.
Dr. Richards was grappling with how to construct a teacher education program that
“builds over time” so that NTs would gradually make “deeper connections” and “develop deeper
understandings” of teaching and learning and of the “complexity” that she thought defined the
nature of teaching. Dr. Richards said, “And that has been really hard, and also really exciting
work, I think, to kind of go from looking at learning inside of one class to looking across around
20 classes.” Dr. Richards thought she was both limited in her ability to create a teacher education
program that prepared NTs to be successful teachers of K–12 students, and excited to try to craft
110

a program that did help NTs build deep connections and understandings across a series of
classes.
Dr. Jones indicated that she wanted to help students think about how ideas of social
justice connected across courses instead of disconnected teacher learning. She stated,
We talk a lot about schools and young people and histories and communities. ... So we
want them [NTs] to be thinking about those things, not in a course, but across courses.
And so part of what gets very hard to do that we [TEs] work on a lot is how to integrate
the kinds of things that we’re doing in a way that at least we’re [TEs] aware of what each
other’s doing. And we can, we can cross those, right? So you don’t want them [NTs] to
think about foundations only in the foundations class, cultural foundations, because that’s
not going to be helpful, right? That they [NTs] have to think about when you’re teaching
math. Well, what does it mean about the ways in which poverty plays out in the
communities we’re in? How does it mean that the inequalities of this type are existing in
these communities for these reasons? What does that mean for your teaching of
mathematics? Right? So part of the way equity plays out is in thinking about the ways in
which the courses can build off, learn from, help our students not think in isolated ways
about these ideas.
In discussing how equity played out in her work as a TE, Dr. Jones described how, in
class, she talked “a lot about schools and young people and histories and communities.” Dr.
Jones wanted “NTs to be thinking about those things, not in a course, but across courses.” That
is, she did not want NTs “to think about foundations only in the foundations class, cultural
foundations, because that’s not going to be helpful.” Implied in what she was saying was the idea
that she wanted NTs to think about how cultural foundations played out in all of their classes, not
111

just in one. Dr. Jones stated that “part of what” was “very hard to do” was to “integrate” what
was happening in one TE’s classroom with what NTs were learning in other classes so that at
least TEs were “aware of what each other’s doing.” Implied in what Dr. Jones stated was the
notion that it was difficult to coherently integrate learning from one class with learning from
other classes so that NTs could think of ideas related to social justice in more integrated, and less
isolated ways (Darling-Hammond, 2005).
Sub-theme 2: Impediments Related to the Classroom Level
Nine of the 16 TEs communicated constraints to preparing NTs at the level of the
classroom. TEs stated the following constraints: being unaware of what is happening in other
classes within the teacher education program, approximating teacher practice in an authentic way
inside of the classroom, supporting NTs with issues of equity, building continuity between
classes and what NTs did at their placement sites, dealing with NT silence and ignorance, getting
NTs to see that they have agency within schools, meeting the state standards for a course, feeling
unable to teach other things that are not specific to the course, and feeling little agency over
assessments.
Dr. Fitzgerald believed that in her role as a TE, a methods course instructor, it was
challenging to be aware of what was happening in other classes within the program. That is, she
didn’t know exactly what learning was happening across courses in the program due to the
“fragmentation” of teacher learning (Darling-Hammond, 2005). She stated,
I currently have a fairly close relationship with the [other] methods instructor. And so,
you know, we are aware of each other’s work, “ish,” kind of realistically ... you know, I
feel like I know what she does, but I don’t really know what she does. I haven’t observed
her teaching. ... There are other courses that all the candidates take that I hear about and
112

I’m sort of, and I actually do have access to those syllabi, but I don’t have, I don’t make
suggestions on the syllabi, but they do give me a sense of what the students are working
on in other contexts. And that helps. That’s also a departure, I think in the past, in other
programs where I’ve taught, I really had no idea at all, what the students are doing at all,
you know, and I think there’s been an effort to at least make people aware of what the
students are experiencing.
Dr. Fitzgerald had some idea of what was happening in other methods courses, and in
other course in the program, but she didn’t really know beyond what she could see on a syllabus.
Due to her relationship with the other methods course instructor, Dr. Fitzgerald felt that both TEs
were “aware of each other’s work, ‘ish,’” but because Dr. Fitzgerald had not “observed her
teaching,” she didn’t “really know what she [did].” While having “access to those syllabi” of
other courses was helpful and a “departure” from past programs she had taught in where she
“really had no idea at all” what was happening in other courses, it was still a challenge to know
what was happening across classes. In her role as a TE, and because of the fragmentation
(Darling-Hammond, 2005), it was difficult for her to know exactly what learning was happening
for NTs in other courses in the program. In this way, her role as a TE constrained her ability to
prepare NTs to be successful teaching K–12 students.
Dr. Braham stated that approximating teacher practice, or as Grossman et al. (2009b)
would term them, rehearsals, while a powerful tool to prepare teachers to teach, was challenging
in terms of the level of authenticity created. Dr. Braham stated,
So, we’d create opportunities for students to actually practice within the methods class as
well. And these are, you know, approximations can happen according to Pam’s kind of
framework for it in ways that have different levels of authenticity, right? That you can, in
113

some ways, student teaching is an, is an approximation, of teaching because you’re still
doing it in somebody else’s classroom, and there’s all sorts of constraints on it that don’t
make it real authentic classroom teaching it’s an approximation of what students will be
doing when they take over their own classroom. And so we’ll have levels of that …
Dr. Braham work, which was consistent with Grossman et al.’s (2009b) model of
approximating teacher practice, sought to “create opportunities” to practice “within the methods
class.” Similar to “student teaching,” Dr. Braham explained that there were constraints on the
experience of practicing teacher moves within the methods class, constraints “that don’t make it
real, authentic classroom teaching.” Implied in what Dr. Braham stated is the notion that teaching
is challenging because there are many factors involved in the authentic act of teaching K–12
students that cannot be recreated in a college classroom. Therefore, Dr. Braham, as pre-service
TE, had to try his best to get as close as possible to the authenticity of teaching, or as Grossman
et al. (2009b) would define it, the “approximations of practice” (p. 283), so that he could
adequately prepare NTs to successfully teach K–12 students.
Dr. Henderson believed it was challenging to prepare NTs to effectively teach K–12
students because it was hard to know how to approach the work of equity with them (Cochran-
Smith et al., 2016). She stated,
Because I don’t, there’s so much that I still could improve on and, in particular around
how we approach the work of equity through teacher education. I don’t, I don’t think
anybody has an answer. ... So I don’t think it’s not something that a single methods
course instructor can, you can get at it a little bit, but it needs to be programmatic. So I
just think that when programs, when faculty and instructors, mentor teachers can come
together and engage in these kinds of conversations
114

Dr. Henderson said that she still had room to improve, and particularly on “how we
approach the work of equity through teacher education.” That is, she thought that no “single
methods course instructor” could have fully tackled issues of equity with NTs. She thought that it
needed to be solved more programmatically. This meant that programs had to have “faculty,” and
other staff “come together” to “engage in these kinds of conversations” around how to solve
issues of equity with and for NTs (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016).
Finding 2: Teacher Educators’ Distinct Approaches to NT Preparation
While all 16 equity-centered pre-service TEs (TEs) saw their goal as helping to prepare NTs
(NTs) to effectively teach K–12 students (Kazemi et al., 2009), all of them expressed distinct
ways of preparing NTs to be successful. From the interview data, the following themes emerged:
 Theme 1: Focus on pedagogy.
 Theme 2: Focus on the student and underlying issues in K–12.
 Theme 3: Focus on both the student and pedagogy.
Theme 1: Focus on Pedagogy
Nine of the 16 TEs expressed that to prepare NTs to effectively teach K–12 students, their
primary purpose within the teacher education program was to focus NTs on a range of
pedagogical strategies or approaches to help K–12 students learn. This perspective is consistent
with Ball and Forzani (2009), Grossman et al. (2009b), McDonald et al. (2013), and Forzani
(2014), who all assert that practice-based pedagogy is key to NT learning. For example, TEs
communicated the following range of pedagogical strategies or approaches: understand how
students think in order to engage them in content; figure out how to teach K–12 students at high
levels because they are highly capable of learning; model for NTs how to teach in a student-
115

centered way; learn strategies to gain knowledge in subject matter; represent teacher practice in
order to get K–12 students to think and discuss mathematically; and, teach science ambitiously.
Dr. Jones believed that NTs should learn how to teach content by understanding how
students think and how to engage them. She stated,
So what, what we’re, what we’re asking our students to leave our class with is an
understanding that, that you’re not learning to teach ... to young people. You’re, you’re,
you’re, you’re not, let’s see how to say this. You’re not learning to teach. … You’re
learning about young people and how to engage young people. … Right? So what’s
important about that is that the young people and who they are drive what you do, not the
current curriculum that you’re given, not the content of mathematics, but the young
people. And so, we’re trying to help them leave with deeply knowing that, but also
knowing what it feels like to do that and to think about how in the moment when you’re
making a decision in … class, how you’re pausing to think about why you’re deciding
what to do.
In this statement, Dr. Jones articulated that she wanted NTs to leave her class with a deep
understanding that to successfully teach students, you must understand how to engage them
specifically. That is, NTs were “not learning to teach … to young people,” they were instead
“learning about young people and how to engage young people.” The driver for pedagogy was
“the young people” themselves, “not the current curriculum” and “not the content of
mathematics.” Dr. Jones wanted NTs to deeply know what it felt like to teach young people; that
is, what it felt like to know specific students and to use their knowledge of students to teach them
better. She wanted NTs “to think about how in the moment when [they were] making a decision
in … class,” they were “pausing to think about why” they were making that decision. NTs should
116

have made pedagogical decisions based on the data they were gathering from students (Franke &
Kazemi, 2001). Dr. Jones went on to say,
We want them [NTs] to be really explicit about the decisions that they’re making and the
ways in which they’re making those. We believe that you can’t do that unless you really
deeply understand young people and young people’s thinking. So we spend a lot of time
in this class helping them. We want them to leave with some deep understandings of
young people’s … ideas, how those ideas develop, what to listen for when they’re
working with young people. And we want them to be developing a stance towards
teaching and learning … that puts that at the forefront. We want them to have some tools,
right? Some tools and resources that they could draw on to be able to enact that work that
can help them learn over time. So, my belief, supported I think by research is that the
most important thing that they can take from my class is learning to learn how to teach ...
to young people … because I can’t teach them everything they need to know in ten
weeks. But I can position them to be asking productive questions of their teaching and to
listen to their young people in a way that they learn every day when they’re teaching
young people about how to teach … better.
Here, Dr. Jones articulated the importance of pedagogically understanding “young people
and young people’s thinking” because if NTs could understand that they could learn to teach
better. She stated, “We want them [NTs] to be really explicit about the decisions that they’re
making and the ways in which they’re making those. We believe that you can’t do that unless
you really deeply understand young people and young people’s thinking.” That is, NTs should
have made decisions explicitly based on what they knew about students and the way they
thought about content. Dr. Jones continued, “We want them to leave with some deep
117

understandings of young people’s ... ideas, how those ideas develop, what to listen for when
they’re working with young people.” Essentially, she wanted NTs to know student’s ideas and
how they develop those ideas and what they should listen for in working with students so that
they could teach them content in a better way. Dr. Jones wanted NTs to take a “stance toward
teaching and learning” that exemplified that notion, which is consistent with Cochran-Smith and
Lytle’s (1999) conception of “inquiry as stance” (p. 250). Dr. Jones wanted NTs to have “some
tools and resources that they could draw on to be able to enact that work that can help them learn
over time.” The tools and resources would help them to consistently make pedagogical decisions
over time based on the thinking they observed students doing in class. Dr. Jones stated,
The most important thing that they can take from my class is learning to learn how to
teach … to young people … because I can’t teach them everything they need to know in
ten weeks. But I can position them to be asking productive questions of their teaching and
to listen to their young people in a way that they learn every day when they’re teaching
young people about how to teach … better.
According to Dr. Jones, the most important thing students could learn in her class was to
learn how to teach to young people by getting them to ask productive questions of their
pedagogy, and by getting them to listen to their students so they understand how to teach them
better.
Dr. Fitzgerald saw her priority as getting NTs to understand that all K–12 students were
capable and it was their responsibility to figure out how to get K–12 students to think at high
levels (Franke & Kazemi, 2001). She stated,
So I, I need them to understand a couple of things. One is all students are capable of
really high-level thinking. Two. It’s their job to figure out how to do that. So, it’s really
118

hard to do, but if kids aren’t doing it, there’s probably a thousand ways you could think
about and reflect on your own instruction. So, two is they need to think of themselves as
reflective practitioners. And that’s an analytic skill. I mean, I’m sure there’s an affective
component to that, right. And psychological, you know, ways. … But like, it’s an
analysis. Like kids didn’t understand that thing. Where could I have added a scaffold, you
know, that would have supported that? Those are, I would say that’s the beating heart of
my whole approach that they, that the assumption that kids are capable of very, very high-
level thinking. … And two, that teaching is an intellectual process where you need to
think about, I mean, it’s also, again, I don’t want to lose the affective part because part of
it is the culture you’ve created in your classroom. And a lot of that is an affective sort of
relational piece, but then you need to figure it out. You know what I mean? And that’s
hard work and it’s iterative.
Dr. Fitzgerald wanted NTs to understand that all students can think at high levels and it is
their job to get them to think at those high levels. She stated, “it’s really hard to do, but if kids
aren’t doing it, there’s probably a thousand ways you could think about and reflect on your own
instruction.” That is, if students were not learning, then it was up to the teacher to figure out what
in their pedagogy may have led to the misunderstanding or lack of learning. Dr. Fitzgerald
thought NTs needed to “think of themselves as reflective practitioners” in that it was their
responsibility to reflect on their own practice because if a student was not learning, it had to have
something to do with their instruction because all students were capable of high-level thinking.
She stated,
And that’s an analytic skill. I mean, I’m sure there’s an affective component to that, right.
And psychological, you know, ways. … But like, it’s an analysis. Like kids didn’t
119

understand that thing. Where could I have added a scaffold, you know, that would have
supported that?
At the end of the day, NTs, according to Dr. Fitzgerald, were responsible for analyzing
whether their pedagogy was effective in class. If a student did not understand something, what
could the teacher have done to help the student? Those were the kinds of questions that Dr.
Fitzgerald expected NTs to ask of their own pedagogy. Dr. Fitzgerald continued,
I would say that’s the beating heart of my whole approach that they, that the assumption
that kids are capable of very, very high-level thinking. … And two, that teaching is an
intellectual process where you need to think about, I mean, it’s also, again, I don’t want
to lose the affective part because part of it is the culture you’ve created in your classroom.
And a lot of that is an affective sort of relational piece, but then you need to figure it out.
You know what I mean? And that’s hard work and it’s iterative.
Again, her entire approach was to get NTs to understand that students can engage in high
levels of thinking, and it was their job to make that happen. Yes, there was a relational
component in terms of creating a positive classroom culture where learning could happen, but
when it was all said and done, NTs needed to be able to figure out if they were being effective. If
they were not, they had to iterate and keep trying to get better. In this way, Dr. Fitzgerald saw
pedagogy as an important driver for preparing NTs to successfully teach K–12 students, which
connects to Ball and Forzani’s (2009) assertion in support of teaching practice.
Dr. Gary believed she should model student-centered teaching for NTs so that they could
teach K–12 students in a similar fashion (McDonald et al., 2013). She stated,
As much as possible, I try to have a student-oriented, student-centered class. I very rarely
lecture. We are often using small group discussions or whole class discussions and
120

modeling the type of instruction I would hope to see them do in their math classes. Right.
I’ll use wait time and get them to respond to one another, to comment on one another’s
thinking. So, it’s not always bouncing back to me, and providing questions and like
resources for them to talk about to help motivate that.
Dr. Gary’s goal was to model teaching in a “student-oriented, student-centered” way to
cultivate the kind of approach she wanted NTs to provide for K–12 students. To do that, Dr. Gary
used “small group discussions or whole class discussions” with NTs to get them to experience
the kind of instruction she hoped “to see them do in their math classes.” She used strategies, such
as “wait time,” in order to allow NTs time to think and “comment on one another’s thinking.”
This was intentional on Dr. Gary’s part so that NTs could see that the discussion didn’t always
need to bounce back to the teacher. Dr. Gary also used questioning strategies, among other
resources, to motivate NTs to discuss, in the same way she hoped NTs would teach in their
classes. In this way, Dr. Gary perceived her role within teacher education as modeling to ensure
that NTs took a student-oriented approach to teaching K–12 students (McDonald et al., 2013).
Theme 2: Focus on the Student and Underlying Issues in K–12
Four of the 16 TEs articulated that to prepare NTs to effectively teach K–12 students,
their role within the teacher education program was to get NTs to understand who the student
was and understand how issues of identity, power, language, etc. impacted them (Gay &
Kirkland, 2003; Milner, 2003). For instance, TEs expressed that it was their role to get NTs to
understand K–12 students by paying close attention to who gets to speak in class and who is
considered intelligent; having a critical awareness of ideas of normalcy and power for the
students they teach; and questioning NT thinking to combat silence and resistance.
121

Dr. Young expressed that a teacher’s role was to pay attention to who gets to speak and
who was considered to be smart (Hooks, 1994; Milner, 2003). She stated,
It’s ubiquitous for us to use the language of low, medium, and high in reference to the
kids. And people often use that language without questioning it. It seems like it’s right.
And so, we talk specifically about why we use those terms, what we’re trying to say
about children, and what’s problematic about the use of those terms. For example, we
might notice that boys and girls are getting different kinds of attention in the classroom or
in their small group work. And we’ll ask them to notice that first of all and to think about
why that might be happening. We ask people to think again about any kinds of descriptive
words they used to describe children and why they’re using those words and how that’s
influencing the way they relate to that child. So, there might be things that they call
personality traits, you know, like shy or quiet, but if you overuse those or you use those
more for girls than for boys, what does that say about the way that you think about voice
in your classroom or who gets to speak? We will definitely ask them to think specifically
about racial dynamics among the kids, their own assumptions about who’s smart at
mathematics, or who’s smart in the classroom, their ideas about smartness in general and
where do they get those ideas.
When Dr. Young said, “it’s ubiquitous for us to use the language of low, medium, and
high in reference to the kids. And people often use that language without questioning it. It seems
like it’s right,” she meant that she had experienced teachers using that kind of language without
thinking about what impact that had on their own thinking about the value of children. She went
on to say, “And so we talk specifically about why we use those terms, what we’re trying to say
about children, and what’s problematic about the use of those terms.” Dr. Young thought it was a
122

problem for teachers to use that kind of language because that type of labeling could have led to
teachers believing that certain students were not smart. She went on to say, “we might notice that
boys and girls are getting different kinds of attention in the classroom or in their small group
work. And we’ll ask them to notice that first of all and to think about why that might be
happening.” Dr. Young used questioning strategies to get NTs to reflect on why educators made
certain choices about certain students and what impact that may have had. She said, “We
definitely ask people to think again about any kinds of descriptive words they used to describe
children and why they’re using those words and how that’s influencing the way they relate to
that child.” She wanted NTs to reflect on the language they employed in describing certain
students because she wanted them to think about deeply about how that influenced how they
related to that student. She stated,
So, there might be things that they call personality traits, you know, like shy or quiet, but
if you overuse those or you use those more for girls than for boys, what does that say about the
way that you think about voice in your classroom or who gets to speak?
Here, Dr. Young was saying that descriptive words “like shy or quiet” could have seemed
innocent, but in reality, if they were overused for certain students, which said something about
how teachers were approaching voice or power in their classrooms. She said,
We will definitely ask them to think specifically about racial dynamics among the kids,
their own assumptions about who’s smart at mathematics, or who’s smart in the classroom, their
ideas about smartness in general and where do they get those ideas.
Dr. Young wanted NTs to think explicitly and deeply about “racial dynamics” in their
classrooms. She wanted NTs to think about whether they were bringing in their own biases or
assumptions about intelligence among students, and to deconstruct the origins of those
123

perceptions. In this way, Dr. Young’s approach toward preparing NTs to successfully teach K–12
students were to get them to understand the underlying issues of identity, language, and power in
K–12 schooling. These are essential elements that would support Gay and Kirkland’s (2013)
conception of “cultural critical consciousness” (p. 181) in pre-service teacher education.
Similarly, TEs in this group who focused on K–12 students as the vehicle to prepare NTs
to teach, believed they pushed their students to have a critical awareness, or “critical
consciousness” (Gay & Kirkland, 2013), of ideas of normalcy and power for the students they
taught. For instance, Dr. Barker stated,
So, I guess the way I think about [preparing NTs] is really getting students to interrogate
their own worldview. So we surface all that stuff. Like how is that different? Because I
also have teacher education students in the same class who are coming from St. Louis,
Kansas City. So, when they’re sitting side by side with someone, you know, someone
from St. Louis is sitting side by side with someone who’s from a tiny town of Missouri,
how can they help each other, see each other’s worldviews and then think about what that
means for students that they may have. Students who are coming from really affluent
suburbs of Kansas City, and want to go right back there, how do I help them unpack their
worldview and think about the needs of students that they may have in their classes that
are really different. So we bring all kinds of critical lenses, we talk about critical theory. A
lot of my own work is around critical language awareness. So, I usually use language as
the kind of the touchstone for how we think about issues of equity. Within talk, for my
English teachers, it’s a really concrete way to get at that. So, we can talk about ideas of
standard English, and how that’s really normative for someone who’s in the suburbs of
Kansas City and that’s sort of unmarked and unquestioned, but someone coming from a
124

tiny town in Missouri, like there’s a really distinct accent and they get stigmatized for the
way they speak. And that’s really different than the racialized kind of African American
English that the, you know, students from inner city St. Louis might be dealing with. So
we can look at a concrete piece of English content, like language, and talk about how
there are racialized ideologies of what language means and how do we then think about
that as the content, and then I use that as my touchstone. And then we can talk about that
same thing. We talk about the texts that we bring into English classrooms. We can talk
about it when we think about writing in English classrooms. And then we can expand that
beyond just English classrooms to really think about like, how do we become aware of
what’s considered normal or what we think of what these normative sort of expectations
are and think about how the roles of power in society play into all of that. And then how
do we as English teachers mess with that, try to expand students’ views.
Dr. Barker wanted NTs to “interrogate their own worldview” to critically analyze the way
they approached meeting the needs of their students. For example, if you had a NT from St.
Louis sitting next to a NT from a small town in Missouri, you could have them interrogate their
own worldviews and how that impacts the students they teach. It was Dr. Barker’s way to have
NTs critically analyze how they used language in their class. “Critical language awareness” was
Dr. Barker’s vehicle to get NTs to think about issues of equity for their K–12 students.
Specifically, for English teachers, Dr. Barker had them discuss “ideas of standard English” and
how that kind of language could be accepted or “stigmatized” depending on regional differences
in use (i.e., accents). Dr. Barker wanted NTs to understand that there could be “racialized
ideologies” of what language meant. This was a concrete way for NTs to grasp the importance of
thinking critically about how they approach underlying issues of race and equity for their
125

students. It was important for NTs to think about the texts they chose for students to read or write
about. It was a way to challenge NTs think around what was “considered normal” and the role
“power in society.” In these ways, Dr. Barker sought to get NTs to think about their students,
who they were, and how ideas of normalcy and power played out in their classrooms (Gay &
Kirkland, 2003; Milner, 2003).
TEs in this group who wanted NTs to focus on students also believed they challenged NT
thinking to combat silence and resistance (Garrett & Segall, 2013). For example, Dr. Goldman
stated,
The difficult for me is when I have sort of a staunch, conservative, right-leaning person
who then becomes silent; they already come silent to my class. It’s not that I silence
them. They already know they’ve been with these students before. They know, I
shouldn’t say it, because if I say it, everybody’s going to look at me, so I’d rather keep
quiet. It’s inviting having conversations with these people, these students inviting them to
participate in a sense, supporting not what it is that they say, but their right to say, and our
right to dismantle what they say. Just like, I just dismantled everybody else that’s a sense
of equity. Okay. That is the biggest challenge I have. Not any on the left or not being left
enough, or it’s on the other side of people being quiet and not being themselves in my
classroom, which is not good. … I’d rather they say it and we deal with it. Then they not
say it and still think it and still act on it. Okay. So, I’d rather in a safe space, like future
preparation in what I think is an intellectual force that people say things that are very
problematic, then not say them if they think them, because it’s going to come out
somewhere and I’d much rather it come out in my classroom, then you’d come out in
126

their K–12 classroom where they have power and they are a figure of authority. So I want
to invite those things in. Absolutely.
Here, Dr. Goldman prioritizes challenging NT silence and ignorance. He stated a clear
example of having a “staunch, conservative, right-leaning” NT who was silent—not because he
silenced them, but because they already know that if they speak their views that everyone would
look at them, and they would ultimately be criticized for having those views. And so they kept
quiet.
Instead of being quiet, Dr. Goldman’s strategy was to uphold everyone’s right to speak
their views and to invite them into conversation with others. Dr. Goldman believed that all NTs
had a right to speak their views, and everyone had a right to dismantle everyone else’s views in a
safe space. The reason for creating this kind of safe space within the teacher education classroom
was for NTs to express problematic views within it and not in their K–12 classrooms later. This
was Dr. Goldman’s concern because he understood that in K–12 classrooms, NTs had “power”
and were figures of “authority.” Dr. Goldman’s approach was to invite those conversations into
his classroom to pre-empt this from reaching K–12 students. In this way, Dr. Goldman saw his
role as challenging NT thinking, silence, and ignorance to prepare them for teaching (Garrett &
Segall, 2013).
Theme 3: Focus on Both the Student and Pedagogy
Two of the 16 TEs believed that both knowing the student and providing high-quality
instruction was important (Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006). The TEs in this group served either at
a program level within their teacher education program or had experience in different roles at
different levels in the program. TEs expressed the following ideas: that it was their job to help
NTs recognize the assets K–12 students brought with them and use that to provide high-quality
127

instruction; and that TEs needed to support NTs to challenge mainstream marginalizing
narratives of K–12 students by identifying a set of instructional practices to support student
learning.
Dr. Richards stated that it was her job as a TE to help the mainly White female NTs in her
program to recognize the assets K–12 students bring in order to provide them with high-quality
instruction (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Gonzalez et al., 2006; Howard, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1995;
Milner, 2003; Paris & Alim, 2017; Philip et al., 2018). She stated,
I think a lot of what we’re doing is kind of engaging in like a pedagogy of discomfort of
them, you know, learning to recognize their own privilege, learning to acknowledge the
ways in which they might be limited. And so it’s so much like an identity project as much
as it is like a pedagogy project. Right. So I think it’s a project of unlearning and to some
degree that’s true for all students, not just the White women because everybody went to
school, right. And so this, I really see teacher education as an opportunity to kind of
disrupt … the apprenticeship of observation, you know, this idea that, you know, you,
what you know about schools based on what you experienced as a student. And so getting
people to think about schooling differently. So that that’s one of the roles that I see
myself playing and then another big piece is, you know, learning about the practice of
teaching, right. And how do we facilitate that learning, um, among a group of very
diverse children and I mean, diverse in like in a really expansive way, right? Like in terms
of race and language, um, and, uh, you know, all these other identity markers, but also
just the way that people learn differently. Right. So, um, and I think, you know, teacher
education programs are really kind of set up to reflect those different aims of like really
working on ideology and stance, and also working on, uh, method and practice. And I
128

guess I don’t see those things as needing to be teased apart. I think that they develop in
concert with one another and I design learning experiences, um, with that assumption in
mind. So, I guess in other words, like, I don’t think belief precedes practice, and I don’t
think that just by focusing on practice that one’s worldview starts to change.
Dr. Richards stated, “I think a lot of what we’re doing is kind of engaging in like a
pedagogy of discomfort” and she went on to say, “learning to recognize their own privilege,
learning to acknowledge the ways in which they might be limited.” Here, Dr. Richards was
alluding to the idea that part of her job as a TE was to get NTs to think about their own identity
and privilege and to own that they may not yet be equipped to teach K–12 students. Dr. Richards
wanted to engage NTs in an “identity project” and a “pedagogy project.” That is, both identity
and pedagogy were important in order to adequately train NTs to teach K–12 students. Dr.
Richards stated that it was a “project of unlearning,” in this case a NT had to unlearn how they
experienced school themselves; and it had to happen for all NTs, not just White women, because
“everyone went to school.” This, Dr. Richards stated, was the way to “disrupt … the
apprenticeship of observation (Borg, 2004). She went on to say that it was about “getting people
to think about schooling differently,” meaning that teaching NTs took a lot of work on both
identity, race, and power and on teaching strategies. Dr. Richards believed that she had to not
only get NTs to be introspective and reflective, but she had to also help them learn “about the
practice of teaching.” Specifically, she wanted NTs to learn to “facilitate that learning” with “a
group of very diverse children” who were diverse in a “really expansive way.” In other words,
Dr. Richards saw her role as helping NTs to see all of the ways in which their students were
diverse, in the way that they learned and in the way that they identified with others and
themselves. Dr. Richards stated that the purpose of teacher education, and thereby her goal as a
129

TE, was to teach NTs both “ideology and stance” (toward diverse learners) and “method and
practice” or teaching strategies. Dr. Richards posited that those two things did not need to be
“teased apart.” Rather, they coincided with one another and should be taught together within
teacher education.
Dr. Graham believed it was important to get NTs to challenge mainstream marginalizing
narratives to support their work in teaching K–12 students (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Howard,
2003; Milner, 2003). She stated,
I would ask myself, okay, if I want this person to be a, if I want these teachers, you know,
when they’re really seasoned to be focused, who consistently challenge mainstream
marginalizing narratives, um, what could I imagine them doing in these first few weeks
and months of their work with kids that would begin opening their eyes and give them
ways to start doing that work? So, um, what I did was I created an instructional activity
that was called Challenge the Textbook, where they had to go out, um, into their own
curricular materials, find some kind of mainstream marginalizing narrative in the
curriculum materials that were in, they were teaching regardless of the content they were
in and plan and enact some way of challenging the textbook in their classroom, the kids.
And then they come back, and we watch videos of them doing that. We would make
sense of what it would like to do that. What was hard about it, what scared them about it,
what kids’ responses were, whether those responses were like, what they thought they
were going to be or not. But I’m always asking myself if the larger goal is this, what’s the
small thing we can try now that gets you on the pathway to being able to do that. And that
really guides my curriculum development because I’m always, I’m always reminding
myself, these are people who are incredibly new and if I don’t give them things that they
130

can try, the, the enormity of the work of interrupting marginalizing mainstream narratives
… might mean that they might never be, they may never try.
As a TE, Dr. Graham saw her goal as getting NTs to consistently challenge “mainstream
marginalizing narratives.” Dr. Graham began by asking herself what she could have NTs doing in
the “first few weeks and months in their work with kids” to accomplish this goal. She went on to
say that she created an instructional activity she called “Challenge the Textbook” where NTs had
to analyze their own curricular materials to find examples of mainstream marginalizing
narratives, irrespective of content, and they had to find some way to get their students to
“challenge the textbook.” NTs were asked to record themselves enacting this activity, and then
they would come back to class, watch their own videos and those of others, try to make sense of
what was happening in the videos, analyze what was challenging or scary, analyze how students
responded, and whether they anticipated those kind of student responses. Dr. Graham’s approach
was to first think about the larger goal for NT skill development, and to then think about the
smaller step that can put NTs on the path to that larger goal. Dr. Graham understood that the
“enormity of the work” of teaching and of “interrupting mainstream marginalizing narratives”
was daunting and NTs needed a starting point and needed smaller steps to reach a larger goal.
Her goal was to enable action in NTs, not deter it by overwhelming them. In this way, Dr.
Graham sought to get NTs to consistently challenge mainstream marginalizing narratives
(Milner, 2008).
In this chapter, I articulated two findings that emerged from the interview data to help
explain the role pre-service TEs believed they played in preparing NTs for high-quality K–12
instruction. Finding one revealed that pre-service TEs were constrained in their ability to prepare
NTs for high-quality K–12 instruction. The second finding revealed that pre-service TEs took
131

distinct approaches to preparing NTs for K–12 instruction. Given these findings, a revised
conceptual framework is presented in the next section.
Revised Conceptual Framework
According to Maxwell (2013), a conceptual framework was a “constructed” (p. 41),
“tentative theory” (p. 39) that helped researchers anticipate and make sense of the phenomenon
of interest. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) further pointed out that the conceptual framework
consisted of concepts or theories that served as the underlying structure or the scaffolding of the
study. Before I started data collection, my focus was on what needed to be taught by pre-service
TEs, how it should be taught to NTs, the importance of reflection, and the role of the pre-service
TE in making commitments, among other things, to novices. Even though the questions in my
interview protocol were designed to dig deeply into how pre-service TEs approached preparing
novices for ambitious teaching, the data did not fully support what I intended to find. Instead, the
data revealed that the pre-service TEs were wrestling with their work intertwined with the
context of teacher education, which was itself a product of the larger American education sector
(Mehta, 2013), to the extent that they believed the constraints often detracted from what they
were trying to accomplish. In the following section, I present the revised conceptual framework
(see Figure 6), which visually represented what I learned after I finished collecting, analyzing,
and interpreting the data from the field.
In designing my original conceptual framework, I expected to see the interplay between
pre-service TEs, NTs, and the content, which would all have been centered around an equity
stance. My original conceptual framework listed the elements, such as adhering to professional
commitments of teaching and engaging in an inquiry community, that I expected to see from pre-
service TEs and the elements like building on the work of other NTs and posing problems of
132

practice that I expected to see from the NTs. My framework listed each item as separate qualities
that each of them put forward in the learning space. In addition, between them there were
pedagogical strategies I expected to see, such as complex, clinical practice and cycles of
investigation, etc.

Figure 6
A Redesigned Model of Pre-service Teacher Educator’s Perceptions About How They Approach
Instruction in Pre-service Teacher Education

133

While my revised conceptual framework accounts for the constraints pre-service TEs
faced that were discovered from the data, the original conceptual framework would remain true
if certain contextual conditions within teacher education remained true, too. If TEs were more
adequately equipped to overcome the challenges they identified during their interviews, then TEs
would, for example, adhere to professional commitments of teaching and engage in an inquiry
community as described in the original conceptual framework. Currently, those conditions do not
exist, and therefore, the revised conceptual framework reflects this reality.
From the semi-structured, open-ended interview data, I discovered that pre-service TEs,
while still trying to meet some of the ideal roles laid out in my original conceptual framework,
were being challenged by constraining elements that lay within the context of teacher education.
As demonstrated in Figure 6, the red arrows represented constraints that pre-service TEs
encountered. These included time constraints, conditions facing the teacher education program,
and role-specific constraints as explained in this chapter. The orange arrows represented the
distinct approaches that TEs took toward NT learning, namely focusing on pedagogy, focusing
on student identity, and focusing on both pedagogy and student identity. This redesigned model
more fully captured pre-service TE perceptions discovered in the data about how they
approached preparing NTs for high-quality teaching of K–12 students.
Developing NTs who can provide high quality instruction hinges on contextual factors or
program conditions that often limit a pre-service TEs’ ability to adequately prepare candidates.
Pre-service TEs can be limited by time, conditions facing the teacher education program that are
out of their locust of control, and the role they play within the program.
For pre-service TEs to prepare NTs more fully for high quality teaching, several factors
must work in their favor. Namely, they must have the right amount of time, with the right NT
134

candidates, who are more predisposed to engage in high quality teaching, and face minimal
outside challenges that they cannot control. That is the focus of the discussion that follows.

135

Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications, and Recommendations
This study focused on the perceptions of 16 pre-service TEs who worked in 4-year higher
education institutions in the United States. This study examined pre-service TEs’ beliefs of the
way they approached instruction to prepare NTs to engage in high quality teaching for K–12
students.
We knew that the quality of instruction in K–12 classrooms mattered and could either
support students in growing their ability to achieve or decrease their ability to read, write, think,
and speak at academically proficient levels (Weisberg et al., 2009). We also knew that
“improving teacher quality” was perhaps the best way to improve schools (Weisberg et al., 2009,
p. 9). One of the most “heavily debated issues” regarding teacher quality was the effectiveness of
teacher education programs (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). Historically, teacher preparation
programs have inconsistently prepared NTs to be pedagogically equipped and critically
conscious, reflective practitioners (Forzani, 2014; Gay & Kirkland, 2003). There were many
studies that focused on reimagining teacher education to be inquiry and practice-based (Ball &
Forzani, 2009; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Forzani, 2014) and on teaching core practices
through rehearsals (Ghousseini et al., 2015; Grossman et al., 2009; Lampert et al., 2013;
McDonald et al., 2013). There were few studies that focused on how pre-service TEs made sense
of their own approaches to educating NTs, and that was the focal point of this dissertation.
I used qualitative methods for this study to understand how pre-service TEs perceived
their role in preparing NTs for high quality K–12 instruction. To be more specific, I used
qualitative case study design to inductively explore how pre-service TEs answer the following
research question: What are pre-service TEs’ perceptions about how they approach instruction to
prepare NTs to engage in high quality teaching?
136

To answer my research question, I used purposeful sampling (Patton, 2015) in order to
“discover, understand, and gain insight” from a “sample from which the most can be learned”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96). I used network sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to identify
potential participants who fit the selection criteria for this study. I reached out to 30 potential
participants, whom I contacted via an email where I introduced myself and explained the nature
of my study as well as the time commitment for participation in the study. The interested pre-
service TEs responded to me via email, and I followed up with them with the information sheet
for my research study and I answered any questions they raised. 16 research participants were
recruited through this process.
To better understand the pre-service TEs’ experience and perceptions of their roles, I
conducted one semi-structured interview with an interview protocol that Meriam and Tisdell
(2016) and Patton (2002) suggested. The time it took for the semi-structured interview was
approximately 1 hour for each participant.
Every interview was conducted via the online meeting software, Zoom, and was
transcribed verbatim afterwards for the purpose of data analysis. The data were analyzed at the
beginning of and throughout the data collection process using a combination of open coding,
axial coding, and pattern coding. Following Creswell’s (2014) advice, I developed a qualitative
codebook to provide definitions for codes and maximize coherence among codes. In addition, I
also worked on analytic memos to move from coding to writing. Pseudonyms for the research
site and the pre-service TEs’ names were created to ensure anonymity. This final chapter is a
culmination of insights gained as a result of this study. It was organized as follows: Summary of
findings, implications and recommendations for practice, policy, and future research.
137

Summary of Findings
As the study examined the perceptions pre-service TEs had about their role in preparing
NTs for high quality K–12 instruction, two findings emerged from the interview data.
Finding one revealed that these pre-service TEs believed they were constrained in their
ability to prepare NTs for high quality K–12 instruction in three ways: time, the conditions facing
the teacher education program, and their specific role within that program. Reflected in their
belief that time was a constraint were their notions that as a NT there is a lot to learn and pre-
service TEs can only focus on one thing at a time, that as they focus on one thing at a time they
have to try to connect that to other learning within the program, and that given that they are only
focused on a few things at a time that NTs will get the other learning they need in other parts of
the program. In terms of the conditions facing the teacher education program, participants
perceived that the quality of the participants entering the teacher education program acted as an
impediment, the relationship to the larger school structure was constraining, and the length of the
teacher education program made it challenging to adequately prepare NTs. Participants also
believed that they were constrained in their ability to prepare NTs based on the level they held
within the teacher education program. That is, the closer a TE was or had been to other roles
within the program, especially higher-level roles, such as faculty advisor or program director, the
more they saw constraints to preparing NTs as programmatic. The closer the TE’s role was to the
classroom or to directly supporting NTs, such as teaching one course or acting as a teaching
assistant, the more the TE focused on classroom-specific constraints, such as the quality of the
participants.
Finding two revealed that pre-service TEs had distinct approaches to preparing NTs for
high quality K–12 instruction. A subset of these pre-service TEs felt their primary purpose was to
138

focus NTs on a range of pedagogical strategies or approaches to teaching K–12 students. Another
group of pre-service TEs within the research sample believed that their role within the teacher
education program was to get NTs to understand who individual students were and how issues of
identity, power, language, etc. impacted them as learners. A final group of pre-service TEs
expressed that their role was to ensure that NTs understood that both knowing the student and
understanding pedagogy was important.
Implications and Recommendations
The interviews conducted in this qualitative study with 16 pre-service TEs revealed
perceptions and insights that could inform policy and practice and suggest areas for additional
research. In this section I present both implications and recommendations in relation to each
area. Each area began with a discussion followed by the implications that can and should inform
what we think about pre-service TEs’ role and concluded with recommendations that
complement or extend the work completed in this study.
Practice
It was clear from the interview data in this study that pre-service TEs faced a myriad of
challenges as they tried to prepare NTs in classrooms that were often out of their control. For
instance, individual pre-service TEs could not control the quality of participants they would
ultimately have in their classrooms. One recommendation is to find better ways to recruit
participants that show a stronger aptitude for high quality teaching of K–12 students. Mehta
(2013) argued that there should be “much higher standards for entry to teacher education
programs” and “higher standards for credentialing to teach” so that we were “more selective in
who [could] become a teacher” (p. 480).
139

Individual pre-service TEs also could not control how much time they had with NTs to
prepare them for K–12 instruction. This constraint must be rectified at a more systemic level. A
recommendation is to allow pre-service TEs more time to adequately prepare NTs for K–12
instruction by extending the amount of time novices spend in classes or extending the length of
the teacher education program. Or pre-service TEs can remain with an individual cohort of NTs
for a longer period.
Moreover, if NTs are receiving differing messages in different classrooms within a
teacher education program about how to connect pedagogy to student identity, then those
infrequent connections will cause NTs to have a misunderstanding about how to adequately
approach high quality teaching for K–12 students, and especially for students of color.
A recommendation is to provide more clarity around how individual pre-service TEs can
focus on both pedagogy and student identity in all classes within the teacher education program.
A final implication for practice is that TEs spoke more to what they could not control
than to what they could control, and in this way, they reproduced the system resulting in a lack of
adequate NT preparation for high quality teaching of K–12 students. One recommendation is for
TEs to be more specifically trained in how to adapt to the challenges of preparing NTs. Teaching
is complex (Cochran-Smith, 2016) and requires building a repertoire of skills to be successful.
Policy
Drawing from the findings, these pre-service TEs universally communicated the presence
of constraints and limitations they encountered. This study found that time is clearly a constraint
for pre-service TEs. That is, there are a wide variety of knowledge and skills required of NTs to
be adequately prepared to teach K–12 students that cannot be covered within a one- or two-year
program. One challenging condition facing teacher education programs is the recruitment of
140

mostly white, female teachers who are not equipped to teach mainly students of color. Recruiting
more NTs of color is not necessarily the solution either as evidenced by Teach for America’s
challenge of hiring teachers of color who have often internalized and subsequently perpetuate
“Whiteness” (Anderson, 2019). One recommendation is for university leaders to find better,
research-based ways to filter potential candidates who possess the right mindset and aptitude for
teaching, and especially for teaching students of color.
Another implication was that the role that specific pre-service TEs play within a program
is often limited by the level at which they fall within the program (i.e., classroom level vs.
program level). That is, TEs who are closer to the classroom level face the challenge of feeling
that they have to teach NTs one specific thing and they will learn the other skills they are
supposed to learn in other parts of the program. TEs who are closer to the program level face the
challenge of unifying many different TEs with different ideological and practical orientations. A
recommendation is for university leaders to set clear guidelines for what each individual TE
should teach in each course and create the conditions for better collaboration so that TEs agree
on how they will approach teaching NTs.
Another policy implication was that TEs did not consistently teach NTs how to tailor
their pedagogy to their individual, unique students’ identities. That is, some TEs focused on
pedagogy, and others focused on student identity. Very few focused on both. A recommendation
is for teacher education program leaders to collaborate with TEs to create a scope and sequence
for how NTs will learn both pedagogy and student identity in all of the courses offered within the
teacher education program.
Lastly, it is particularly glaring that there exists a parallel between the constraints faced
by pre-service TEs in teacher education, and the constraints faced by teachers in K–12 teaching.
141

That is, both are constrained by an American education sector that needs reform (Mehta, 2013).
A major policy recommendation is to reform the American education system so that actors within
the system work together to more adequately prepare pre-service TEs by helping them become
more practice-based in their approach and NTs by providing more support especially in the first
three years of their teaching experience.
Research
This study sought to understand the perceptions pre-service TEs have about how they
approach preparing NTs for high quality K–12 instruction. Given the findings of this case study, I
present the implications for future research. One area that would benefit from empirical research
is around providing improved training, support, and collaboration for individual pre-service TEs
within a program. If we expect pre-service TEs to fully and adequately prepare NTs for high
quality K–12 instruction beginning in their first year, we must provide them with training on how
to overcome pedagogical challenges in preparing NTs, guidance about the role they play in
preparing NTs within their program, clarity about how that connects to the larger picture of what
NTs need to learn in the program, opportunities to get support throughout the time they have
with NTs, and systems to collaborate with other pre-service TEs on a regular basis.
Another area that deserves further investigation has to do with state teacher credentialing
requirements. None of the participants in this study mentioned the impact of credentialing
requirements on what is taught in teacher education classes or on the design of teacher education
programs.
Conclusions
This study explored the perceptions and insights of 16 pre-service TEs in 4-year higher
education institutions in the United States on how they approached preparing NTs for high
142

quality teaching for K–12 students. The findings suggested that pre-service TEs face a series of
challenges as they work toward this goal, which had implications on what they believed they
could accomplish in their limited time with NTs. Recommendations for practice, policy, and
further research were made at the end of this chapter.

143

References
Anderson, A. (2019). Assessing the “education debt”: Teach for America and the problem of
attrition. Critical Education, 10(11), 1–19.
Anderson, L. (2019). Private interests in a public profession: Teacher education and racial
capitalism. Teachers College Record, 121(6), 1–38.
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Borg, M. (2004). The apprenticeship of observation. ELT journal, 58(3), 274–276.
Case, C. W., Lanier, J. E., & Miskel, C. G. (1986). The Holmes Group report: Impetus for
gaining professional status for teachers. Journal of teacher education, 37(4), 36–43.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2015). Keeping teaching complex: Policy, research and practice. Venue,
4(1), 1–11.
Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., Hill, M., & Ludlow, L. (2016). Initial
teacher education: What does it take to put equity at the center? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 57(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.006
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. American Educational Research Association, 24(1999), 249–
305. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x024001249
Cochran-Smith, M., Stringer Keefe, E., & Carney, M. C. (2018). Teacher educators as reformers:
Competing agendas. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 572–590.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2018.1523391
144

Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2009). Studying teacher education: The report of
the AERA panel on research and teacher education. American Educational Research
Association.
Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A. M., Abrams, L., Chavez-Moreno, L., Mills, T., & Stern, R.
(2015). Critiquing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, part II. Journal
of Teacher Education, 66(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114558268
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher
education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547–561.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2014.939009
Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education:
Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533800
Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student
thinking. Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 102–109.
Garrett, H. J., & Segall, A. (2013). (Re)Considerations of ignorance and resistance in teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 294–304.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113487752
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in
preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 181–187.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_3
Ghousseini, H., Beasley, H., & Lord, S. (2015). Investigating the potential of guided practice
with an enactment tool for supporting adaptive performance. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 24(3), 461–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2015.1057339
145

Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction, 4(1), 162–183.
González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing
practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Williamson, P. W., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009).
Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9),
2055–2100.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining
teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
Hooks, B. (2014). Teaching to transgress. Routledge.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_5
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8
Kazemi, E., Franke, M., & Lampert, M. (2009). Developing pedagogies in teacher education to
support NTs’ ability to enact ambitious instruction. Crossing Divides: Proceedings of the
32nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia,
1(1), 12–30.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
146

Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., Cunard, A.,
Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher
learning of Ambitious Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112473837
Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a TE. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4),
271–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533386
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications.
McCarthy, M. D. (2018). Critically teaching criticality?: Modeling social and pedagogical
inquiry with literary texts. Studying Teacher Education, 14(2), 174–193.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2018.1449103
McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378–386.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113493807
Mehta, J. (2013). From bureaucracy to profession: Remaking the educational sector for the
twenty-first century. Harvard Educational Review, 83(3), 463–488.
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Milner, H. R. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193–
208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320308200
Milner IV , H. R. (2008). Disrupting deficit notions of difference: Counter-narratives of teachers
and community in urban education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1573–1598.
147

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). NAEP mathematics & reading assessments
highlighted results at grades 4 and 8 for the Nation, States, and Districts.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning
for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
Philip, T. M., Souto-Manning, M., Anderson, L., Horn, I., J. Carter Andrews, D., Stillman, J., &
Varghese, M. (2019). Making justice peripheral by constructing practice as “core”: How
the increasing prominence of core practices challenges teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 70(3), 251–264.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.
Rodgers, C. R., & Raider-Roth, M. B. (2006). Presence in teaching. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 12(3), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13450600500467548
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., Keeling, D., Schunck, J., Palcisco, A., & Morgan, K.
(2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in
teacher effectiveness. New Teacher Project.
Zeichner, K. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 63(5), 376–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112445789

148

Appendix A: Semi-Structured Open-Ended Interview Protocol
Hello, my name is Danny Herrera, and I am a Doctoral Candidate at USC Rossier School
of Education. I am conducting a study on TE perceptions.
During this conversation, I am hoping to learn more about your experience thus far in
preparing NTs within a preservice teacher education program. Specifically, I’d like to speak to
you about your thoughts and beliefs about how you approach pedagogy for NTs.
The interview should take approximately 60 minutes. I will be audio recording our
interview as well as taking notes. At any point, you may stop the interview and request that your
responses be redacted. Anything you share with me today will be confidential and a pseudonym
will be used in lieu of your name. Do you have any questions before we begin? Do I have your
consent to start the interview?
Interview Questions
I. The Role of the Teacher Educator
1. Given your role as an equity-centered TE, what are your goals for NTs? What
are the three most important things you want them to walk away knowing or
being able to do?
2. How do you create curriculum for diverse populations of NTs?
3. What questions do you ask yourself in the process of creating curriculum for
diverse populations of NTs, if any?
4. What kinds of professional commitments do you make to your practice, if
any?
i. Follow-up: How do these professional commitments impact your
work?
149

II. The Role of the Novice Teacher
1. What kinds of equity issues appear in your work with NTs, if any?
2. How do you discover the views your students have on issues of equity, if at
all?
3. What do you believe your role is in promoting an equity-centered mindset for
your students, if at all?
i. Follow-up: Have you experienced challenges in promoting an equity-
centered mindset in your students?
4. What do you believe your role is in getting your students to adhere to
professional commitments of teaching, if at all?
5. What do you believe your role is in disrupting inequitable mindsets or
practices as they present themselves in working with your students, if at all?
6. In your experience, in what ways do NTs support each other’s learning,
especially as relates to issues of equity, if at all?
III. Pedagogy/Content
1. Thinking about the design of a course, what teaching strategies do you use to
promote equitable mindsets or practices, if at all?
i. Follow-up: What teaching strategies do you employ to get your
students to reflect critically on their practice, if any?
2. Do you have any artifacts or physical representations of how you approach
equity-centered teaching of core practices that we can discuss during the
interview? (This question will be sent to the TE in advance of the interview).

150

Appendix B: Information Sheet
Information Sheet for Exempt Research
Study Title: Equity-Centered Teacher Educator Perceptions
Principal Investigator: Danny Herrera
Faculty Advisor: Julie Slayton, PhD, JD

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is
unclear to you.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to understand how TEs perceive how they approach
instruction in teacher education to prepare NTs to engage in ambitious teaching in high needs
urban areas. We hope to learn how equity-minded TEs in teacher education programs make sense
of their work and structure their programs to support high quality preparation of NTs who can
engage in ambitious teaching to support students from diverse backgrounds in equitable and
culturally conscious ways. You are invited as a possible participant because you are an equity-
minded TE who teaches or has taught in a teacher education program for at least two years, and
you believe in providing high quality preparation for the NTs you teach.
Participant Involvement
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in an interview that will ask
you about your role and how you approach your work, including designing curriculum and
151

instruction and structuring learning experiences for NTs. The interview should take about 60
minutes.
Payment/Compensation for Participation
You will receive a $20 visa gift card for your time. You do not have to answer all the
questions in order to receive the card. The card will be mailed to you after the interview.
Confidentiality
Danny Herrera, Julie Slayton, and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used, unless you explicitly state otherwise. This means that your name will
be changed (you are welcome to provide a pseudonym if you wish), and the name of the
university you are affiliated with will not be used.
Data from the interview, including video recording and transcripts, will only be kept until
the research is complete. The data will then be discarded securely and permanently.
You have the right to member check the data after it has been collected and before the
research report is written to decide if you believe something should be clarified, changed, or
removed.
Investigator Contact Information
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Danny Herrera,
dannyh@usc.edu or Julie Slayton, jslayton@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applied teacher education literature to understand the way pre-service teacher educators (TEs) perceived their role in preparing novice teachers (NTs) to engage in high quality instruction for K–12 students. The research participants, who were pre-service TEs with varied backgrounds and at least 2 years of experience, were selected through purposeful and snowball sampling. This study utilized a qualitative case study design with one-on-one interviews of 16 pre-service TEs within teacher education programs at universities across the United States using a semi-structured, open-ended interview protocol to gather information of the participants’ perceptions and experiences on how they approached the preparation of NTs in their teacher education programs. The analysis revealed two findings: First, all the research participants spoke to constraints that limited their ability to prepare NTs to engage in high quality teaching of K–12 students. The constraints that pre-service TEs identified were time, challenging conditions facing the teacher education program, and their role or level within their program. Second, the interview data revealed that pre-service TEs all took distinct approaches to preparing novices, and these approaches could be grouped into three categories: focus on pedagogy, focus on student identity, and focus on both pedagogy and student identity. The study disclosed the way pre-service TEs grappled with their work in the context of teacher education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

Examining teacher pre-service/credential programs and school site professional development and implementation of culturally relevant teaching of BIPOC students

PDF

Changing nature of preservice teacher concerns in an accelerated, graduate-level teacher education program

PDF

How teacher preparation programs prepare White teachers to teach in urban school settings

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

PDF

Disrupting cis-heteronormativity: creating safe and affirming conditions for racially marginalized LGBTQ+ students through a critical reflection coaching group

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

Multimodal composing and teacher preparation

PDF

Latina/o pre-service teachers: a community's cultural wealth overlooked

PDF

Examining how teacher pre-service/credential programs prepare teachers to teach BIPOC students

PDF

Enabling dis/abled females

PDF

A case study about the implied and perceived messages sent by one teacher through instruction for academic and behavioral expectations of students

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Understanding digital transformation of early childhood pre-service teacher education in China

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

Authentic professional learning: a case study

PDF

Cultivating critical reflection: an action research study on teaching and supporting district intern participants through critical reflection

Asset Metadata

Creator Herrera, Danny Joseph (author)

Core Title Pre-service teacher educator perceptions on preparing novice teachers for high quality teaching of K–12 students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 01/11/2023

Defense Date 09/06/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag high quality instruction,novice teachers,OAI-PMH Harvest,preparing novice teachers,preparing pre-service teachers,pre-service teachers,Teacher Education,teacher educator perceptions,Teacher educators,teacher preparation

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Pascarella, John (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email dannyh@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112710937

Unique identifier UC112710937

Identifier etd-HerreraDan-11408.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-HerreraDan-11408

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Herrera, Danny Joseph

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230111-usctheses-batch-1000 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu